Shockwave and Non-transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely adopted treatment modality for severe aortic stenosis. Transfemoral access is the approach of choice; however, approximately 25% of patients undergoing TAVR also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease. The recent advent of intravascular lithotripsy has enabled preservation of transfemoral access in some patients; although, a proportion still require alternative, non-femoral access. Alternative access sites can be broadly categorized into transthoracic and peripheral, facilitated by surgical or percutaneous techniques. In this review, the technical details and clinical outcomes of various TAVR accesses are discussed. Initially, transthoracic approaches were most common, but recently, the trend has been toward alternative peripheral access due to superior outcomes. Although there are no randomized data to support all the alternative access sites, the experiences reported provide available options for a large portion of patients to be candidates for TAVR. The intervention site should be selected by a multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomical factors and institutional expertise.

Mixed-Valve Disease: Management of Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Mitral Regurgitation: Thresholds for Surgery Versus Percutaneous Therapies

Significant mitral regurgitation (MR), frequently seen in the presence of severe aortic stenosis (AS), results in an association that negatively affects prognosis and imposes particular challenges for both the assessment of the severity of valvular lesions and decisions regarding treatment allocation. This article reviews the available literature with regards to the assessment of MR and AS in the presence of both; surgical management and results in patients with concomitant AS and MR; the effect of MR on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement; the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on MR severity; and percutaneous treatment for MR after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The authors aim to provide assistance in the decision-making process to treat patients with either a higher-risk double-valve procedure or a simpler, but perhaps incomplete, single-valve option.

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiac Arrest and Cardiogenic Shock

The rising incidence and recognition of cardiogenic shock has led to an increase in the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). As clinical experience with this therapy has increased, there has also been a rapid growth in the body of observational and randomized data describing the clinical and logistical considerations required to institute a VA-ECMO program with successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this review is to summarize this contemporary data in the context of four key themes that pertain to VA-ECMO programs: the principles of patient selection; basic hemodynamic and technical principles underlying VA-ECMO; contraindications to VA-ECMO therapy; and common complications and intensive care considerations that are encountered in the setting of VA-ECMO therapy.

Current Landscape of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Technology

Mechanical circulatory support devices provide hemodynamic support to patients who present with cardiogenic shock. These devices work using different mechanisms to provide univentricular or biventricular support. There is a growing body of evidence supporting use of these devices as a goal for cardiac recovery or as a bridge to definitive therapy, but definitive, well-powered studies are still needed. Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used using shock team and protocols, which can help clinicians in decision making, balancing operator and institutional experience and expertise. The aim of this article is to review commercially available mechanical circulatory support devices, their profiles and mechanisms of action, and the evidence available regarding their use.

Rediscovered and Unforgotten: Transcatheter Interventions for the Treatment of Severe Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation

Tricuspid valve regurgitation is both globally prevalent and undertreated. Historically, surgical intervention for isolated tricuspid regurgitation (TR) was avoided despite the prevalence of TR, largely due to poor surgical outcomes and an incomplete understanding of how it independently affects mortality. Over the past two decades, TR has been shown by several studies to be an independent predictor of worse functional status and poor survival on long-term follow-up. During this same time period, transcatheter interventions for the treatment of valvular heart disease have evolved dramatically. While the transcatheter repair and replacement of the tricuspid valve in patients with severe TR remains in the early stages of investigation relative to the mitral or aortic valve, the field is rapidly expanding. Here, the authors review the field of transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions for severe TR, focusing on the orthotropic devices and valves currently available worldwide.

Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks

The mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevation MI and major trauma, institutions are increasingly advocating the use of a multidisciplinary ‘shock team’ approach to CS management. A volume–outcome relationship exists in CS, as with many other acute cardiovascular conditions, and the emergence of ‘shock hubs’ as experienced facilities with an interest in improving CS outcomes through a hub-and-spoke ‘shock network’ approach provides another opportunity to deliver improved CS care as widely and equitably as possible. This narrative review outlines improvements from a networked approach to care, discusses a team-based and protocolized approach to CS management, reviews the available evidence and discusses the potential benefits, challenges, and opportunities of such systems of care.

Antithrombotics in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Type and Duration of Treatment

Patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at an increased risk of atherothrombotic complications. Although dual antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation, deciding its type and duration in complex PCI patients has long been considered a challenge for clinicians. This is because the beneficial effects of prolonged treatment and/or more potent antiplatelet agents’ use in preventing ischemic events are hindered by a concomitant increase in bleeding complications. The aim of this review is to highlight current evidence regarding the optimal antithrombotic therapy regimens used in complex PCI patients, focusing on the evaluation of both safety and efficacy outcomes as well as addressing future perspectives.

Heart Transplant and Ventricular Assist: Cardiac Surgery and Heart Failure Perspective

For nearly 60 years, there have been two surgical treatment options for individuals with severe advanced heart failure: heart transplantation or implantation of a left ventricular assist device. As these fields have advanced in parallel, improvements in surgical technique, device development, and patient selection have improved outcomes for both therapies. Development of a comprehensive approach to the management of the most severe forms of advanced heart failure requires a deep understanding of both heart transplantation and durable ventricular assistance, including recent advancements in both fields. This article will review the substantial progress in the fields of heart transplantation and mechanical left ventricular assistance, including recent changes to organ allocation prioritization and left ventricular assist device evaluation, both of which have dramatically influenced practice in these fields.

Describing and Classifying Shock: Recent Insights

Cardiogenic shock continues to present a daunting challenge to clinicians, despite an increasing array of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. Mortality for cardiogenic shock has not changed meaningfully in more than 20 years. There have been many attempts to generate risk scores or frameworks to evaluate cardiogenic shock and optimize the use of resources and assist with prognostication. These include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK) II risk score, the CardShock score and the new CLIP biomarker score. This article reviews the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification of cardiogenic shock and subsequent validation studies. The SCAI classification is simple for clinicians to use as it is based on readily available information and can be adapted depending on the data set that can be accessed. The authors consider the future of the field. Underlying all these efforts is the hope that a better understanding and classification of shock will lead to meaningful improvements in mortality rates.