Transcatheter management of pure native aortic valve regurgitation in patients with left ventricular assist device

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve regurgitation (AR) frequently complicates the clinical course after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this cohort with a mostly high surgical risk profile. The unique challenges in LVAD patients, such as presence of non-calcified aortic valves and annular dilatation, raise concerns about device migration and paravalvular leakage (PVL) leading to missing device success. This study evaluates procedural outcomes and survival rates in LVAD patients who underwent TAVI, emphasizing strategies to enhance device success.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and April 2023, 27 LVAD patients with clinically significant AR underwent elective or urgent TAVI at our centre. Primary end-points were procedural success rates, without the need for a second transcatheter heart valve (THV) and postprocedural AR/PVL. Secondary outcomes included survival rates and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among the cohort, 14.8% received AR-dedicated TAVI devices, with none requiring a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and 1 patient (25%) had AR > 'trace' at discharge. Additionally, 25.9% underwent device landing zone (DLZ) pre-stenting with a standard TAVI device, all without needing a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and none to trace AR at discharge. Among the 59.3% receiving standard TAVI devices, 37.5% required a second THV. In this subgroup, intraprocedural AR > 'trace' occurred in 12.5%, decreasing to 6.25% at discharge. In-hospital mortality was 3.7%, and median follow-up survival was 388 days (interquartile range 208-1167 days).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI yields promising procedural outcomes and early survival rates in LVAD patients with AR. Tailored TAVI devices and pre-stenting techniques enhance procedural success. Continued research into these strategies is essential to optimize outcomes in this complex patient cohort.

Aortic insufficiency associated with Impella that required surgical intervention upon implantation of the durable left ventricular assist device

The Impella is an axial-flow percutaneous ventricular assist device for cardiogenic shock. In this report, we describe two patients who developed aortic insufficiency (AI) associated with Impella and required surgical intervention upon implantation of the durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Both patients presented with cardiogenic shock and underwent insertion of Impella 5.0 as a bridge to decision. The cardiac function in these patients did not improve and obtaining approval for heart transplantation required time. They were managed with Impella for 91 and 98 days, respectively. In both cases, moderate AI that was not present before Impella insertion was observed when the Impella was removed. Therefore, we performed aortic valve closure to control the AI during durable LVAD implantation. In patients with durable LVAD implantation, AI may occur and progress after the operation in several cases. Aortic valve surgery is often performed to prevent deterioration of AI, especially in patients with AI before the surgery. Hence, AI is an important complication following Impella device implantation as a bridge to decision. Careful observation of AI is essential when the Impella is removed as the evaluation of AI by echocardiogram during Impella management is cumbersome because of device-generated artifacts.