Subject(s)
Atrial Appendage , Atrial Fibrillation , Humans , Atrial Appendage/diagnostic imaging , Atrial Appendage/surgery , Atrial Appendage/physiopathology , Atrial Fibrillation/surgery , Atrial Fibrillation/diagnostic imaging , Atrial Fibrillation/physiopathology , Cardiac Catheterization/instrumentation , Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Cardiac Catheterization/adverse effects , Echocardiography/methods , Treatment Outcome , Echocardiography, Transesophageal/methods , Aged , Male , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methods , Left Atrial Appendage ClosureABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Concomitant mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) showed to be a feasible approach to optimize the treatment of patients eligible for both procedures, but mid-term outcomes are unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients undergoing M-TEER and enrolled in the local prospective Getting Reduction of Mitral Insufficiency by Percutaneous Clip Implantation (GRASP) registry. We compared patients undergoing isolated M-TEER (n = 58, 58.5%) with those undergoing concomitant M-TEER and LAAC (n = 41, 41.5%) from January 2018 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, stroke or systemic embolism, hospitalization for heart failure, and bleeding at 1 year. The co-primary endpoint was procedural success. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was similar between patients undergoing concomitant M-TEER+LAAC or isolated M-TEER (Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates 36.6% vs. 44.8%; plog-rank = 0.75). Procedural success was also similar (92.7% vs. 94.8%; p = 0.69). At 1- year, minor bleeds were lower in patients undergoing concomitant M-TEER and LAAC (KM estimates 0.0% vs. 18.9%; plog-rank < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In patients with concomitant MR and AF and eligible for M-TEER and LAAC treatment, a combined approach of M-TEER and LAAC was as safe as an M-TEER-alone strategy and associated with lower minor bleeding at 1 year.
ABSTRACT
While mitral stenosis of rheumatic origin has been effectively treated percutaneously for more than 20 years, transcatheter treatment of mitral (MR) and tricuspid (TR) regurgitation appears as a contemporary unmet clinical need. The advent of new transcatheter therapies offers several treatment options for elderly and frail patients at high surgical risk. MitraClip is now consolidated as a therapy for functional MR in selected patients. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a promising alternative to transcatheter repair, for both functional and degenerative forms. However, further developments and new evidence are needed. Transcatheter treatment of the tricuspid valve has arrived late compared to similar technologies that have been developed for the aortic and mitral valve, and is currently in its infancy. This is likely due, in part, to the previously underreported impact of TR on patient outcomes. Edge-to-edge repair is the most advanced transcatheter solution in development. Data on annuloplasty and tricuspid valve replacement are limited and more evidence is needed. The future looks promising for transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve therapies, although their place in clinical practice has yet to be clearly defined.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall complications are common after kidney transplantation, and although they have a minor impact on patient and graft survival, they increase the patient's morbidity and may have an impact on quality of life. Abdominal wall complications have an overall incidence of 7.7-21%. METHODS: This review will explore the natural history of abdominal wall complications in the kidney transplant setting, with a special focus on wound dehiscence and incisional herni, with a particular emphasis on risk factors, clinical characteristics, and treatment. RESULTS: Many patient-related risk factors have been suggested, including older age, obesity, and smoking, but kidney transplant recipients have an additional risk related to the use of immunosuppression. Wound dehiscence usually does not require surgical intervention. However, for deep dehiscence involving the fascial layer with concomitant infection, surgical treatment and/or negative pressure wound therapy may be required. CONCLUSIONS: Incisional hernia (IH) may affect 1.1-18% of kidney transplant recipients. Most patients require surgical treatment, either open or laparoscopic. Mesh repair is considered the gold standard for the treatment of IH, since it is associated with a low rate of postoperative complications and an acceptable rate of recurrence. Biologic mesh could be an attractive alternative in patients with graft exposition or infection.
