ABSTRACT
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the mainstay for high-risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, and research regarding the use of transcatheter valves in intermediate or low-risk patients is currently ongoing. The aim of this article is to provide comprehensive insight into the anesthetic management of patients undergoing TAVI and to highlight possible gaps in the current knowledge. One important procedural characteristic that is imperative to consider is the type of anesthesia being used and its possible complications. Increasingly, experienced centers have changed from general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation to local anesthesia with sedation, especially when the transfemoral access route is used for TAVI. There is still debate regarding what type of anesthesia should be used in the procedure, and the lack of randomized data makes it even more challenging for the operators.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia/methods , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods , Anesthesia, General , Anesthesia, Local , Humans , Postoperative ComplicationsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an emerging technique for the treatment of aortic stenosis. With the advent of percutaneous suture devices for the access point and prosthesis delivery systems of smaller diameter, TAVI has become a truly percutaneous procedure: percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR). Thus, PAVR may be conducted without general anaesthesia (GA). METHODS: We report two centres' experience from PAVR without GA. CoreValve aortic bioprostheses were utilised. The patient selection process and PAVR procedure are described in detail. RESULTS: a total of 30 patients (pts) were treated with PAVR. In 4 pts correction of the initial malposition of the prosthesis required a special technique (2 pts: "snare"; 2 pts: "removing and reinserting"). At 1-month follow up, haemodynamic and clinical improvements were observed: left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 50.8 ± 9.3% to 54.3 ± 8.3% (p=0.02); peak aortic valve gradient decreased from 90.3 ± 26.4 mmHg to 14.8 ± 9.7 mmHg, (p<0.001); NYHA functional class decreased from 3.53 ± 0.93 to 1.45 ± 0.94 (p<0.001). Overall 1-month mortality was 3.3% (1 patient died). CONCLUSION: PAVR without general anaesthesia is a feasible technique, however the role of anaesthesiologists is still important.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia, General , Bioprosthesis , Coronary Angiography , Female , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Sinus of ValsalvaABSTRACT
We report two cases of successful treatment of Brucella endocarditis. Both of them were treated with antibiotics and aortic valve replacement after Brucellosis was diagnosed. In one of these cases emergency operation was required. Our observations suggest that a combined surgical and medical treatment is the best option for the management of this disease. B. endocarditis should be operated after improvement of clinical status but emergency cardiac surgery may be required if heart failure develops.
