Evidence Hub

Mechanical circulatory-support and intravascular lithotripsy in high-risk patients undergoing PCI and TAVR: a case series

A. Marchese, G. Tarantini, Antonio Tito, V. Margari, F. Resta, Ilir Dhojniku, D. Paparella, G. Speziale

European Heart Journal: Case Reports, 2021

7 citations

Abstract

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) usually have multiple comorbidities, such as severely impaired left-ventricular function (LVF) and heavily calcified coronary lesions. When they undergo pre-TAVR high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs) for severely calcified left-main (LM) lesions, potential life-threatening intra-procedural complications associated with the different techniques available to treat calcified lesions can arise. In this setting, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) proves its usefulness. However, the choice of device can be troublesome.

We report two clinical scenarios of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for the treatment of heavily calcified LM coronary lesions, wherein peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal-membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), alone or combined with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), were used as an upfront strategy to support the procedure. The use of these techniques was particularly effective during multi-vessel HR-PCIs and TAVR, and no complications occurred, which suggested their safety.

These cases provide multiple insights into the strategy of using IVL + VA-ECMO, alone or with IABP, to treat heavily calcified LM coronary lesions in patients with severely compromised LVF undergoing TAVR. IVL safely and effectively overcame shortcomings related to other plaque ablation techniques, and VA-ECMO proved to be effective when facing the combination of high-risk coronary and valve interventions.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free