Skip to main content
Case Report

Expandable Sheath Perforation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Bernadette Speiser, BSN, MSN, CCRN, RCIS; Xi Yuan, BSN, RCIS

Palo Alto Health Care System, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Palo Alto, California

Editor's Note: A pdf is available for download at right (look for the red PDF icon).

July 2021

Introduction

Aortic stenosis has been treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) since 2002 by Dr. Cribier and his colleagues.¹ The most common delivery technique for catheter-based valve replacement has been the retrograde femoral artery approach. Initially, access was achieved in the clinical arena via surgical cutdown. However, due to improvements in technology, reduction in sheath size, and large-bore catheter vascular closure devices (VCD), there has been accumulating evidence supporting the percutaneous approach’s superior safety and efficacy.²

Nakamura et al³ identified the feasibility of the complete percutaneous approach and included acceptable safety and clinical benefits. The percutaneous arm versus the surgical cut-down arm of their study identified a reduction in wound infections, reduction in hospital bed days of care, and fewer bleeding complications. However, the group also noted that while the incidence of vascular events was higher in the percutaneous group, it did not affect in-hospital mortality. The Spanish TAVI Registry also reported that the percutaneous approach bore higher rates of minor vascular complications but lower rates of major bleeding at 30 days and at mid-term follow-up.⁴ Iliofemoral vascular complications weren’t common for the percutaneous group. Aortic complications were rare (0.6-1.9%), but carried a high mortality rate.

Prior to the TAVR procedure, a computed tomography angiography (CTA) is utilized in part to help identify vascular access risks. The luminal diameter of the access vessels, presence of any dissections, height of bifurcation vessels, and calcium burden are essential to evaluate and ensure a successful percutaneous approach. For the 26 mm Sapien 3 Ultra valve (Edwards Lifesciences), the product literature states the requirement of a minimum diameter of 5.5 mm for the 14 French delivery system.

During access, utilization of ultrasound guidance as well as fluoroscopic imaging should be implemented to compare specific landmarks. Use of the common femoral artery CTA  in comparison to the femoral head on fluoroscopy will provide further delineation of access entry.

Please Log In To View
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit, lacinia semper feugiat taciti integer aliquam enim, bibendum volutpat mi nisi netus natoque. Dapibus hac tristique odio leo integer finibus vestibulum etiam parturient, gravida primis ac vulputate natoque sapien lorem hendrerit erat pulvinar, platea non vitae penatibus quam luctus habitant egestas. Parturient tincidunt habitant lobortis pretium volutpat mattis vestibulum dolor facilisis, nisl donec augue aliquet tristique urna habitasse finibus risus, quisque ex ultricies varius mi ullamcorper ac platea. Sollicitudin nulla consequat lorem habitasse ullamcorper facilisi feugiat elit bibendum, nostra odio est euismod turpis imperdiet aliquet torquent neque finibus, a primis nisi maecenas eget congue quam laoreet.
Finibus enim nisi at nam feugiat, velit metus luctus porta sagittis, taciti tristique platea gravida. Adipiscing fermentum efficitur ante varius nisl massa egestas commodo penatibus, bibendum sollicitudin ultrices dis lacus interdum est viverra curae facilisi, mauris blandit mattis condimentum ut per augue sapien. In lorem vitae metus tortor ligula massa odio finibus, scelerisque phasellus habitasse mollis tincidunt tellus netus dapibus parturient, nulla elit himenaeos interdum morbi volutpat sodales. Dolor platea efficitur vitae blandit lacus maximus donec ex netus nascetur venenatis ridiculus cubilia arcu lobortis hendrerit, ligula auctor sociosqu suscipit penatibus libero non feugiat id ipsum ultrices consectetur vulputate porttitor. Tincidunt ultrices dolor sociosqu fames felis quam netus, hendrerit finibus interdum senectus ante sapien.
Fringilla dictumst nibh dignissim sed donec mus hac orci nullam lobortis, facilisi est ipsum proin felis blandit commodo per lacus, sit consectetur id auctor quisque egestas congue a placerat. Risus scelerisque adipiscing interdum vehicula ridiculus fringilla nulla, eros maecenas per curae arcu magna. Viverra congue dictum sit diam varius nullam porta quisque, suscipit est habitasse sed sodales parturient magna cubilia penatibus, accumsan porttitor finibus maecenas platea laoreet tempor. Dui aliquet dis erat volutpat mauris sollicitudin, tincidunt praesent purus vivamus elementum nibh, dignissim ac in himenaeos orci.

References

1. Genereux P, Webb JG, SvensonLG, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60: 1043-1052.

2. Vora AN, Rao SV. Percutaneous or surgical access for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Nov; 10(Suppl 30): S3595-S3598. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.09.48

3. Nakamura M, Chakavarty T, Jilaihami H, et al. Complete percutaneous approach for arterial access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison with surgical cut-down and closure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 84: 293-300.

4. Hernandez-Enriquez M, Andrea R, Brugaletta S, et al. Puncture versus surgical cutdown complicaitons of transfemoral aortic valve implantation (from the Spanish TAVI Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118: 578-84.

5. Scarsini R, De Maria GL, Joseph J, et al. Impact of complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: how can they be avoided and managed? J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Sep 17; 8(18): e013801. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013801