Safety and efficacy of stenting for aortic arch hypoplasia in patients with coarctation of the aorta.

BACKGROUND: Despite a successful repair procedure for coarctation of the aorta (CoA), up to two-thirds of patients remain hypertensive. CoA is often seen in combination with abnormal aortic arch anatomy and morphology. This might be a substrate for persistent hypertension. Therefore, we performed endovascular aortic arch stent placement in patients with CoA and concomitant aortic arch hypoplasia or gothic arch morphology. The goal of this retrospective analysis was to investigate the safety and efficacy of aortic arch stenting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in patients who underwent stenting of the aortic arch at the University Medical Center Utrecht. Measurements collected included office blood pressure, use of antihypertensive medication, invasive peak-to-peak systolic pressure over the arch, and aortic diameters on three-dimensional angiography. Data on follow-up were obtained at the date of most recent outpatient visit. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent stenting of the aortic arch. Mean follow-up duration was 14 ± 11 months. Mean peak-to-peak gradient across the arch decreased from 39 ± 13 mm Hg to 7 ± 8 mm Hg directly after stenting (p < 0.001). There were no major procedural complications. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased from 145 ± 16 mm Hg at baseline to 128 ± 9 mm Hg at latest follow-up (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study shows that stenting of the aortic arch is successful when carried out in a state-of-the-art manner. A direct optimal angiographic and haemodynamic result was shown. No major complications occurred during or after the procedure. At short- to medium-term follow-up a decrease in mean systolic blood pressure was observed.

Carcinoid heart disease: a guide for screening and timing of surgical intervention.

The cardiac manifestations of a neuroendocrine tumour are referred to as carcinoid heart disease (CaHD) and are associated with a poor prognosis. Surgical intervention is the only proven therapeutic option and may prolong survival and quality of life. No consensus has been reached internationally with regard to screening for CaHD and the optimal timing for surgery. Although limited evidence is available on this matter, a trend towards early surgery and subsequent reduced mortality has been observed. In this review we provide an overview of the current understanding and propose a protocol to guide cardiologists in the screening for CaHD and the timing of referral to a specialised surgical centre.

Anticoagulant bridging in left-sided mechanical heart valve patients.

BACKGROUND: In preparation for an invasive procedure with a high bleeding risk, patients with a mechanical heart valve temporarily have to discontinue their anticoagulant therapy and are usually bridged with either intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). In this study we retrospectively analyzed the safety of UFH versus LMWH as bridging strategy in left-sided mechanical heart valve patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study in four surgical centers in The Netherlands. Patients with a mechanical heart valve implantation bridged from January 2010 until January 2015 were included. The cumulative incidence of adverse events in the 30days following the procedure was recorded. Main outcomes were major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, symptomatic thromboembolism, and mortality. RESULTS: In total, 238 (174 aortic, 42 mitral, 22 aortic+mitral) bridging episodes were included. The incidence of major bleeding was 16 (19%) events in the UFH group versus 29 (19%) events in the LMWH group (p=0.97). Incidences of thromboembolism were 2 (2.4%) versus 1 (0.6%). The incidence of death was 1 (1.2%) patient in the UFH group versus 3 (1.9%) patients in the LMWH group. More than 50% of all bleeding complications were categorized as a major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging anticoagulation in patients with aortic and mitral mechanical valves is associated with considerable risk, but no difference was apparent between UFH and LMWH strategy. The rate of thromboembolism and death was low with either strategy and the vast majority of adverse events were bleedings.