• Claire-Marie Tissot, David Attias, Dominique Himbert, Gregory Ducrocq, Bernard Iung, Marie-Pierre Dilly, Jean-Michel Juliard, Laurent Lepage, Delphine Détaint, David Messika-Zeitoun, Patrick Nataf, and Alec Vahanian.
• Department of Cardiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France.
• EuroIntervention. 2011 May 1;7(1):49-56.

AimsTo assess the results of percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty (PABV) as a potential bridge to further intervention in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).Methods And ResultsTwo hundred and fifty-three patients referred for TAVI were studied: 41 (16%) were considered transiently unsuitable for either aortic valve replacement (AVR) or TAVI and underwent PABV as a bridge to intervention. In the others, primary TAVI or AVR was performed in 140 cases, and medical therapy alone in 72.The overall population was at high risk: 82 ± 8 years, logistic EuroSCORE: 28 ± 16%, STS score: 16 ± 10%. There was no PABV-related death. Twenty-three patients underwent secondary TAVI (n=19) or AVR (n=4), 18 did not undergo further intervention. One and two year survival rates were respectively 94 ± 5% and 85 ± 10% after bridge PABV, and 33 ± 11 and 6 ± 5% after PABV alone. There was no difference in survival between the primary TAVI / AVR and bridge PABV (p=0.08), and between medical treatment and PABV alone (p=0.36).ConclusionIn high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and temporary contraindications to AVR or TAVI, PABV may be used as a bridge to intervention with good mid-term outcomes. In others, PABV can be safely used but is associated with a poor outcome.

19 keywords...

hide…