ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Whilst the majority of the patients with severe aortic stenosis can be directly addressed to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), in some instances additional information may be needed to complete the diagnostic workout. We evaluated the role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a bridge-to-decision (BTD) in selected high-risk patients. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2012, the heart team in our Institution required BTD BAV in 202 patients. Very low left ventricular ejection fraction, mitral regurgitation grade ≥ 3, frailty, hemodynamic instability, serious comorbidity, or a combination of these factors were the main drivers for this strategy. We evaluated how BAV influenced the final treatment strategy in the whole patient group and in each specific subgroup. RESULTS: Mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 23.5% ± 15.3%, age 81 ± 7 years. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%, cerebrovascular accident 1% and overall vascular complications 4% (0.5% major; 3.5% minor). Of the 193 patients with BTD BAV who survived and received a second heart team evaluation, 72.6% were finally deemed eligible for definitive treatment (25.4% for AVR; 47.2% for TAVI): 96.7% of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction recovery; 70.5% of patients with mitral regurgitation reduction; 75.7% of patients who underwent BAV in clinical hemodynamic instability; 69.2% of frail patients and 68% of patients who presented serious comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty can be considered as bridge-to-decision in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be immediate candidates for definitive transcatheter or surgical treatment.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: A sizable group of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis can undergo neither surgical aortic valve replacement nor transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of repeated balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in these patients. METHODS: Within our local prospective BAV registry, we retrospectively selected 105 patients who underwent ≥2 BAV procedures between 2005 and 2012 because of persisting contraindications to definitive treatment after first BAV. In-hospital outcome and incidence of adverse events at 1, 2, and 3 years were assessed. Mean age was 84 ± 6 years, mean logistic EuroSCORE was 23.6 ± 13.4%. RESULTS: No intraprocedural deaths occurred. In-hospital events for the 224 BAV procedures were: myocardial infarction, 4%; stroke, 0.9%; vascular complications, 8% (1.8% major); and bleedings, 5.9% (life threatening, 0.9%; major, 1.8%). Acute aortic regurgitation occurred in 6 cases and was always resolved during procedures. Median follow-up was 785 days. Second BAVs showed fewer vascular complications (P<.001) and bleedings (P<.001). Bleedings (odds ratio [OR], 6.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-29.88) and vascular complications (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.19-19.31) occurring after the first procedure were independent predictors for subsequent adverse events. All-cause mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years was 15.2%, 41.3%, and 57.2%. Hospital readmission for heart failure was 40.7% at 1-year follow-up, 61.7% at 2-year follow-up, and 77.6% at 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: BAV is associated with poor long-term clinical outcome. However, when no other therapeutic options are feasible, a strategy of repeated palliative BAV appears to be safe and is potentially associated with improved clinical outcomes.
