Sultan Sherif, Pate Gordon, Hynes Niamh, Mylotte Darren
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Western Vascular Institute, University Hospital Galway, National University of Ireland Galway, Newcastle Rd, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.
Department of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Surgery, Galway Clinic, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Affiliated Hospitals, Doughiska, Galway H91 HHT0, Ireland.
Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2020 Nov 24;4(6):1-6. doi: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytaa379. eCollection 2020 Dec.
Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a worthwhile substitute in patients who might otherwise be inoperable; however, it is applied in <10% of TAVI cases. In patients with established carotid artery stenosis, the risk of complications is increased with the transcarotid access route.
We report a case of concomitant transcarotid TAVI and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a patient with bovine aortic arch and previous complex infrarenal EndoVascular Aortic Repair (EVAR). The integrity and positioning of the previous EVAR endograft was risked by transfemoral access. The right subclavian artery was only 4.5 mm and the left subclavian was totally occluded so transcarotid access was chosen. The patient recovered well, with no neurological deficit and was discharged home after 72 h. He was last seen and was doing well 6 months post-procedure.
In patients with severe aortoiliac disease, or previous aortic endografting, transfemoral access for TAVI can be challenging or even prohibitive. Alternative access sites such as transapical or transaortic are associated with added risk because they carry increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, longer intensive care unit and hospital stay, and increased cost. A transcaval approach for TAVI has also been reported but was not suitable for our patient due to prior EVAR. Concomitant TAVI via transcarotid access and CEA can be successful in experienced hands. This case highlights the importance of a team-based approach to complex TAVI cases in high-risk patients with complex vascular access.
经颈动脉经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)对于那些原本无法进行手术的患者来说是一种值得采用的替代方法;然而,它仅应用于不到10%的TAVI病例中。在已确诊颈动脉狭窄的患者中,经颈动脉入路会增加并发症的风险。
我们报告了一例患有牛主动脉弓且曾接受复杂的肾下型血管腔内主动脉修复术(EVAR)的患者,同时进行经颈动脉TAVI和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的病例。经股动脉入路会危及先前EVAR血管内移植物的完整性和定位。右锁骨下动脉仅4.5毫米,左锁骨下动脉完全闭塞,因此选择经颈动脉入路。患者恢复良好,无神经功能缺损,72小时后出院回家。术后6个月最后一次随访时,他情况良好。
在患有严重主髂动脉疾病或先前接受过主动脉内植入术的患者中,经股动脉入路进行TAVI可能具有挑战性,甚至不可行。经心尖或经主动脉等替代入路会带来额外风险,因为它们会增加主要不良心血管事件的风险、延长重症监护病房和住院时间,并增加费用。也有报道经腔静脉入路进行TAVI,但由于患者先前接受过EVAR,该方法不适用于我们的患者。在经验丰富的医生手中,经颈动脉入路同时进行TAVI和CEA可以成功。本病例强调了在具有复杂血管入路的高危患者中,采用团队协作方法处理复杂TAVI病例的重要性。