Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation pp 417-424 | Cite as
Procedure Efficiency in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Chapter
- 579 Downloads
Abstract
The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents one of the most important breakthroughs in the modern era for the treatment of failing native and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves. In the initial era of the early 2000s, the procedure was in its infancy, and as such operators and surgeons took extra precaution during the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural phases of the procedure to ensure patient safety and guarantee a positive procedural outcome. However, as the field of transcatheter therapeutics evolved, so did the procedure and operators, alike. The work flow in the various procedural phases began to become more streamlined, and redundancies were eliminated. Various international collaboratives and studies demonstrated that certain aspects of the procedure previously thought to be necessary were more rather optional. As experience with TAVR has grown, so to have various practices to ensure procedural success as well as efficiency. Thus, we have highlighted currently adopted and the most up-to-date procedural practices that promote optimal outcomes and drive procedural efficiency during all phases of TAVR.
Keywords
TAVR Efficiency Outcomes Procedural planning Heart team QualityReferences
- 1.Holmes DR Jr, Rich JB, Zoghbi WA, Mack MJ. The heart team of cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:903–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:252–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2438–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Otto CM, Kumbhani DJ, Alexander KP, et al. 2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the management of adults with aortic stenosis: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1313–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Passeri JJ, Melnitchouk S, Palacios IF, Sundt TM. Continued expansion of the heart team concept. Futur Cardiol. 2015;11:219–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tops LF, Wood DA, Delgado V, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of the aortic root with multislice computed tomography implications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Jilaihawi H, Kashif M, Fontana G, et al. Cross-sectional computed tomographic assessment improves accuracy of aortic annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reduces the incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1275–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Khalique OK, Hahn RT, Gada H, et al. Quantity and location of aortic valve complex calcification predicts severity and location of paravalvular regurgitation and frequency of post-dilation after balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:885–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Schultz CJ, Tzikas A, Moelker A, et al. Correlates on MSCT of paravalvular aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:446–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Shavelle DM, Budoff MJ, Buljubasic N, et al. Usefulness of aortic valve calcium scores by electron beam computed tomography as a marker for aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Willson AB, Webb JG, Labounty TM, et al. 3-dimensional aortic annular assessment by multidetector computed tomography predicts moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a multicenter retrospective analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Caruthers SD, Lin SJ, Brown P, et al. Practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantification of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography. Circulation. 2003;108:2236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Gleeson TG, Mwangi I, Horgan SJ, Cradock A, Fitzpatrick P, Murray JG. Steady-state free-precession (SSFP) cine MRI in distinguishing normal and bicuspid aortic valves. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:873–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Pouleur AC, le Polain de Waroux JB, Pasquet A, Vancraeynest D, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. Planimetric and continuity equation assessment of aortic valve area: head to head comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:1436–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Dewey TM, Brown D, Ryan WH, Herbert MA, Prince SL, Mack MJ. Reliability of risk algorithms in predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:180–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Attizzani GF, Alkhalil A, Padaliya B, et al. Comparison of outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a minimally invasive versus conventional strategy. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1731–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Grover FL, Vemulapalli S, Carroll JD, et al. 2016 Annual Report of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1215–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Hyman MC, Vemulapalli S, Szeto WY, et al. Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation. 2017;136:2132–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Babaliaros V, Devireddy C, Lerakis S, et al. Comparison of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed in the catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach) versus hybrid operating room (standard approach): outcomes and cost analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:898–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Frohlich GM, Lansky AJ, Webb J, et al. Local versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR)—systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2014;12:41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Attizzani GF, Ohno Y, Latib A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation under angiographic guidance with and without adjunctive transesophageal echocardiography. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:604–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Goncalves A, Nyman C, Okada DR, et al. Transthoracic echocardiography to assess aortic regurgitation after TAVR: a comparison with periprocedural transesophageal echocardiography. Cardiology. 2016;137:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Minha S, Waksman R, Satler LP, et al. Learning curves for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial: success and safety. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Alli O, Rihal CS, Suri RM, et al. Learning curves for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial: technical performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:154–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Griese DP, Reents W, Diegeler A, Kerber S, Babin-Ebell J. Simple, effective and safe vascular access site closure with the double-ProGlide preclose technique in 162 patients receiving transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:E734–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019