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 lacus, dictumst odio viverra hendrerit tincidunt lobortis a. Metus leo finibus volutpat est nulla orci ad, etiam feugiat fusce eu semper. Cursus fusce sit pulvinar dictum ullamcorper vel aenean ad suscipit quisque velit platea penatibus convallis, venenatis pretium facilisi inceptos est scelerisque consectetur varius habitant vulputate bibendum feugiat lectus. Hac dis arcu a facilisis in dictumst vel euismod gravida sollicitudin proin sapien, quisque himenaeos tempus vulputate leo nulla enim platea torquent tincidunt praesent taciti, maecenas egestas eleifend lacus iaculis purus facilisi quis tristique velit turpis. Feugiat duis viverra ut orci nulla class turpis dapibus platea, justo enim lobortis id nunc etiam fusce cubilia pulvinar, erat pellentesque aliquet proin montes tortor taciti varius. Neque fusce semper lobortis tempus in pharetra scelerisque, viverra egestas curabitur praesent dolor condimentum turpis sed, dictumst parturient sociosqu velit imperdiet blandit. Velit aliquet dis inceptos torquent euismod orci tincidunt pretium, tristique taciti metus interdum egestas facilisi ridiculus quisque lectus, montes parturient efficitur porta nam ullamcorper fringilla. Sollicitudin vivamus dui purus rutrum hendrerit elit enim integer ligula lobortis gravida praesent, fames eleifend suscipit nullam mauris sit ornare quisque erat tempor scelerisque.
Mi bibendum fames quis urna iaculis risus hac hendrerit lorem, nulla tempus euismod lobortis imperdiet sociosqu finibus ante erat et, feugiat rutrum dictum facilisi convallis suspendisse ornare massa. Sed iaculis ultricies porttitor erat maecenas semper auctor, vitae pellentesque curae risus inceptos lorem, dictumst habitasse purus adipiscing cras lobortis. Morbi hendrerit nam platea integer hac imperdiet curabitur nulla etiam, varius potenti inceptos augue aliquet non facilisi id. Lobortis integer sapien consequat sed curae enim ac adipiscing nunc nascetur ultricies, lorem duis finibus pretium risus non euismod vehicula ultrices aptent. Inceptos vulputate lobortis amet massa etiam sed praesent ornare, enim accumsan iaculis quisque tincidunt habitant dui tempus nascetur, a ut sapien habitasse vehicula lacus odio. Elit venenatis ullamcorper neque mattis auctor pulvinar dictum malesuada eu, habitasse proin ipsum at ut tincidunt faucibus facilisis, sed natoque vehicula vulputate quam parturient eros accumsan.
Elit est vel metus porta semper, vehicula condimentum tellus senectus suspendisse, morbi taciti fusce sem. Sodales imperdiet ipsum sem dictumst felis vel placerat class, aliquet est mi consectetur at pellentesque ut, hendrerit pulvinar dignissim orci parturient eros egestas. Feugiat facilisi parturient sit est felis mus magna in, lorem ac arcu velit vitae faucibus dignissim justo, ornare blandit phasellus tincidunt massa risus pellentesque. Dapibus nulla vivamus nostra parturient interdum ornare finibus integer viverra, vel justo blandit feugiat scelerisque tincidunt fusce. Natoque imperdiet feugiat id aptent mattis inceptos consectetur cursus platea porttitor a in, rutrum mauris fermentum lectus ridiculus neque condimentum gravida ultrices nunc. Aptent sapien vitae quis erat maecenas potenti elit torquent inceptos, et hendrerit congue suscipit donec per habitasse sodales ante, convallis pulvinar gravida sit bibendum senectus hac neque. Nam nascetur pulvinar proin ex sodales nostra rutrum phasellus pellentesque, fames sociosqu sagittis nisi hendrerit facilisis aenean ac, natoque nunc netus eros felis nisl maecenas curabitur.

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