The Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Impairment Treated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Optimized patient selection in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients with poor left-ventricular (LV) function undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs). These patients are often in critical condition and not suitable candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. For the definition of HR-PCI, there is a growing consensus that multiple factors must be considered to define the complexity of PCI. These include haemodynamic status, left-ventricular ejection fraction, clinical characteristics, and concomitant diseases, as well as the complexity of the coronary anatomy/lesions. Although haemodynamic support by percutaneous LV assist devices is commonly adopted in HR-PCI (protected PCI), there are no clear guideline recommendations for indication due to limited published data. Therefore, decisions to use a nonsurgical, minimally invasive procedure in HR-PCI patients should be based on a risk–benefit assessment by a multidisciplinary team. Here, the current evidence and indications for protected PCI will be discussed.

Specific clinical vignettes in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention

There are several cardiac- and patient-related factors that come into play when considering patients for protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Cardiac factors include complexity/location of coronary lesions, the degree of left or right ventricular impairment, the presence of valvular lesions, and ventricular arrhythmias. Patient related factors include comorbidities that would render the patient at a higher risk of death should cardiogenic shock ensue during the procedure. Comorbidities include chronic lung disease (chronic obstructive airways disease, asthma, pulmonary fibrosis), renal or liver impairment, other cardiovascular diseases (such as previous cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, carotid stenosis), diabetes, frailty and advanced age. Here, we present three very different cases where left ventricular support was deemed appropriate to reduce peri-procedural risk and optimize outcomes.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to characterize the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a nationally representative database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2012-2018 National Inpatient Sample was queried for adult patients who underwent isolated TAVR. The tMCS group was comprised of those who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, percutaneous ventricular assist device, or intra-aortic balloon pump during index hospitalization. We evaluated temporal trends in the utilization of tMCS using Cuzick's test. Furthermore, a multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with tMCS use and its impact on in-hospital mortality, selected complications, and nonhome discharge.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 215,925 patients who underwent TAVR, 3085 (1.4%) required tMCS during their hospital course. The most common modality of tMCS was intra-aortic balloon pump (49%), followed by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (27%) then percutaneous ventricular assist device (18%). Seven percent of tMCS patients were supported by > 1 device. The annual incidence of tMCS usage decreased over the study period, from 3% in 2012 to 1% in 2018 (P-trend < 0.01). Nonelective admission, congestive heart failure, coagulopathy, and liver disease were strong independent predictors of requiring tMCS. Patients requiring tMCS had a 31.8% in-hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio = 23, 95% confidence interval 18.5-28.5), longer length of stay (9 d versus 3, P < 0.001), and higher costs ($84,600 versus $48,100, P < 0.001) than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of tMCS during TAVR has decreased over time but remains associated with a 23-fold increased mortality rate and significant clinical and resource utilization burden.

Acute valvular emergencies

Acute valvular emergencies represent an important cause of cardiogenic shock. However, their clinical presentation and initial diagnostic testing are often non-specific, resulting in delayed diagnosis. Moreover, metabolic disarray or haemodynamic instability may result in too great a risk for emergent surgery. This review will focus on the aetiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic findings, and treatment options for patients presenting with native acute left-sided valvular emergencies. In addition to surgery, options for medical therapy, mechanical circulatory support, and novel percutaneous interventions are discussed.