Elective Percutaneous Paravalvular Leak Closure Under Conscious Sedation: Procedural Techniques and Clinical Outcomes

Paravalvular leak closure after TAVI with plugs: A literature review with a specific focus on arterio-arterial loop

More than mild paravalvular leak (PVL) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with a twofold increase in all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and the need for reintervention. Successfully addressing PVL in TAVIs is more challenging than in surgical valves. The arterial-arterial (A-A) rail technique emerges as a valuable strategy for post-TAVI PVL closure, enhancing success rates by enabling the effective use of lower-profile vascular plug devices. When standard approach is ineffective, generating an A-A loop for post-TAVI PVL closure is probably the most recommended strategy to ensure procedural success.

Predictors of Clinical Success After Transcatheter Paravalvular Leak Closure: An International Prospective Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter closure of a symptomatic prosthetic paravalvular leak (PVL) is feasible, but there is presently no conclusive evidence to show consistent efficacy. We aimed to identify predictors of clinical success after transcatheter PVL closure.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred to 24 European centers for transcatheter PVL closure in 2017 to 2019 were included in a prospective registry (Fermeture de Fuite ParaProthétique, FFPP). Clinical success was absence of any of the following within 1 month: re-admission for heart failure, blood transfusion, open-heart valvular surgery, and death.

RESULTS

We included 216 symptomatic patients, who underwent 238 percutaneous PVL closure procedures on the mitral (64.3%), aortic (34.0%), or tricuspid (1.7%) valve. Symptoms were heart failure, hemolytic anemia, or both in 48.9%, 7.8%, and 43.3% of patients, respectively. One, 2, and 3 leaks were treated during the same procedure in 69.6%, 26.6%, and 3.8% of patients, respectively. The PVL was pinpoint or involved 1/8 or 1/4 of the valve circumference in 18.6%, 52.4%, and 28.1% of cases, respectively. The most frequently used devices were the Vascular Plug 3, Ventricular Septal Defect Occluder, Vascular Plug 2, and Paravalvular Leak Device (45.0%, 16.6%, 14.2%, and 13.6% of cases, respectively). Successful device(s) implantation with leak reduction to ≤grade 2 was obtained in 85.0% of mitral and 91.4% of aortic procedures, respectively (P=0.164); with major periprocedural adverse event rates of 3.3% and 1.2%, respectively (P=0.371); and clinical success rates of 70.3% and 88.0%, respectively (P=0.004). By multivariate analysis, technical failure, mechanical valve, and hemolytic anemia were independently associated with absence of clinical success (odds ratios [95% CIs], 7.7 [2.0-25.0]; P=0.002; 3.6 [1.1-11.1]; P=0.036; and 3.7 [1.2-11.9]; P=0.025; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter PVL closure is efficient and safe in symptomatic patients but is associated with a lower clinical success rate in patients with hemolysis and/or a mechanical valve.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifiers: NCT05089136.

Mitral valve paravalvular leaks: Comprehensive review of literature

BACKGROUND

Mitral paravalvular leaks (mPVL) are a recognized complication for patients with mitral valve prostheses. Although clinically insignificant for many patients, it may pose life-threatening haemolysis and regurgitation-induced heart failure, and so clinicians should have a high index of suspicion in the presence of new symptoms.

AIMS

This review discusses the pathogenesis, clinical features, diagnosis, imaging and treatment of mPVLs.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database, Google Scholar and Ovid. Search terms used included "mitral valve paravalvular leak," "transthoracic echocardiography," "2D transoesophageal echocardiography," "3D transoesophageal echocardiography," "cardiac computed tomography," (CT) "cardiac magnetic resonance imaging," "intracardiac echocardiography," "cinefluoroscopy," "fluoroscopy," and "percutaneous closure."

RESULTS

All patients with mPVLs should undergo regular full evaluation, including patient history, physical examination, laboratory work-up, imaging, and referral, if necessary. Echocardiography is fundamental to the diagnosis, and is augmented with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, cardiac computerized tomography and fluoroscopy for further characterization and procedural planning amongst the structural heart team.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of mPVL is expected to increase proportionally to the growing number of surgical and transcatheter valve replacements conducted in the ageing population. Multimodal imaging is instrumental in guiding diagnostic and therapeutic strategies when managing mPVLs. Advances in imaging and capabilities of transcather devices will prompt growing uptake of percutaneous treatment over conventional, higher-risk surgery for mPVL management.