Background: Percutaneous paravalvular leak (PVL) closure is an alternative treatment option for severely symptomatic, high-surgical risk patients with PVL. Some patients require multiple percutaneous PVL closure procedures. However, the procedural characteristics and success rate of re-do PVL closure have not been well studied. Aims: The aim of this study is to investigate the indications, procedural characteristics, technical success rate, and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients who underwent re-do PVL closure. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous paramitral or paraaortic leak closure at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota from 2004 through 2015 were studied. Clinical and procedural characteristics of patients who underwent re-do PVL closure were compared to age- and sex-matched patients who underwent their first percutaneous PVL closure. Procedure success and 30-day MACE were compared in both the groups. Results: Among 223 identified percutaneous PVL closures, 16 (7%) were re-do procedures. Patients who underwent re-do PVL closure were predominantly men (87.5%) with a mean age of 68 ± 15 years and an estimated mean Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) 30-day mortality of 4.6 ± 2.8. Half of the re-do PVL closures were performed on mechanical valves and 62.5% were performed on paramitral defects. Indications for re-do PVL closure were: (1) emergence of new significant paravalvular defects in 50%, (2) incomplete index defect closure in 43.75%, and (3) index procedural complication in 6.25% of the cases. Procedural success was 75% in re-do procedures vs. 85.4% in age- and sex-matched control group (P = 0.45). Thirty-day MACE was 12.5% in the re-do group compared to 4.2% in the age- and-sex matched patients who underwent PVL closure for the first time (P = 0.35). Conclusion: Re-do percutaneous PVL closure is feasible with favorable procedural success rate and low 30-day MACE. Development of new paravalvular defects is the most common indication for re-do PVL closure, highlighting the importance of careful longitudinal monitoring and follow-up.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine