Percutaneous transcatheter obliteration of mitral prosthetic paravalvular leaks

Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions

Blanchard

et al. 2022

Self Cite

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions

Blanchard

et al. 2022

Self Cite

“…However, tPVLc is a complex and demanding procedure, [15][16][17] more so at the mitral than the aortic valve. Technical difficulties may occur in crossing the leak with the wire and delivery sheath, obtaining stable implantation, and ensuring that the device provides complete occlusion without impairing valve motion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural Tools and Technics for Transcatheter Paravalvular Leak Closure: Lessons from a Decade of Experience

Kılıç

et al. 2022

JCM

Self Cite

Prosthetic paravalvular leaks (PVLs) are associated with congestive heart failure and hemolysis. Surgical PVL closure carries high risks. Transcatheter implantation of occluding devices in PVL is a lower risk but challenging procedure. Of the available devices, only two have been specifically approved in Europe for transcatheter PVL closure (tPVLc): the Occlutech® Paravalvular Leak Device (PLD) and Amplatzer™ ParaValvular Plug 3 (AVP 3). Here, we review the various tools and devices used for tPVLc, based on three observational registries including 748 tPVLc procedures performed in 2005–2021 at 33 centres in 11 countries. In this case, 12 registry investigators with over 20 tPVLc procedures each described their practical tips and tricks regarding imaging, approaches, delivery systems, and devices. They considered three-dimensional echocardiography to be the cornerstone of PVL assessment and procedure guidance. Anterograde trans-septal mitral valve and retrograde aortic approaches were used in most centres, although some investigators preferred the transapical approach. Hydrophilic-coated low-profile sheaths were used most often for device deployment. The AVP 3 and PLD devices were chosen for 89.0% of procedures. Further advances in design and materials are awaited. These complex procedures require considerable expertise, and experience accumulated over a decade has no doubt contributed to improve practices.

Multimodality imaging guidance for percutaneous paravalvular leak closure: Insights from the multi-centre FFPP register

Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases

Bagate

et al. 2018