Why the study?
Stiff guidewires in the LV apex are a known risk factor for LV perforation during TAVI, prompting evaluation of a modified procedure to minimize interaction between the guidewire and apex.
Does a modified TAVI protocol omitting prolonged stiff guidewire use in the LV apex prevent ventricular perforation in patients undergoing TAVI?
Does a modified TAVI protocol omitting prolonged stiff guidewire use in the LV apex prevent ventricular perforation in patients undergoing TAVI?
A modified TAVI protocol that avoids prolonged use of a stiff guidewire in the LV apex is feasible and eliminates the risk of LV perforation.
OBJECTIVES: The presence of a stiff guidewire in the apex of the left ventricle (LV) is a known risk factor for LV perforation. Our goal was to minimize the risk of LV rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by omitting the interaction between the stiff guidewire and the LV apex using a modified procedure. METHODS: A TAVI protocol designed to allow minimal interaction between a stiff guidewire and the LV was developed in Linköping University Hospital in Sweden. A total of 316 patients were treated exclusively by this approach between March 2014 and May 2018. RESULTS: All procedures were completed successfully. There were no cases (0%) of ventricular perforation. Only 1 patient (0.3%) had a pericardial effusion, and it was due to annulus rupture. There was 1 case of acute kidney injury (0.3%). Five patients (1.6%) required a new permanent pacemaker. Stroke occurred in 3 patients (0.9%). No patient had valve embolization. Vascular complications were experienced by 6 patients (1.9%). A mild paravalvular leak occurred in 27 (8.5%) patients. At 30 days post-TAVI, 6 patients (2%) had died. The mortality rate at 1 year was 8.6% (n = 20/232). CONCLUSIONS: Our series shows that TAVI without the prolonged use of a stiff guidewire in the LV apex is feasible. The risk of LV perforation is eliminated by this approach, and other procedural complications are limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: