Image – Interventional flashlight

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00748

Fracture of the delivery catheter system during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Xavier Armario1, MD; Liesbeth Rosseel1, MD; Faisal Sharif1,2, MBBS, PhD; Darren Mylotte1,2, MBBCh, MD, PhD

Figure 1. Delivery catheter system fracture during TAVI. A) Moderately calcified and tortuous iliofemoral arteries. B) & C) Moderately calcified and angulated trileaflet aortic valve. D) & E) Positioning, deployment and recapture of a 34 mm Evolut R valve. F) – H) Fractured delivery catheter system. Reproduced with permission from Medtronic.

Figure 1. Delivery catheter system fracture during TAVI. A) Moderately calcified and tortuous iliofemoral arteries. B) & C) Moderately calcified and angulated trileaflet aortic valve. D) & E) Positioning, deployment and recapture of a 34 mm Evolut R valve. F) – H) Fractured delivery catheter system. Reproduced with permission from Medtronic.

An 87-year-old male with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis was accepted for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) via transfemoral approach (Figure 1). Multislice computed tomo-graphy demonstrated moderately calcified and tortuous iliofemoral arteries (minimal lumen diameter 10.4 mm) (Figure 1A), and a moderately calcified and angulated trileaflet aortic valve (aortic annulus perimeter 85.0 mm; aortic root angulation 45º) (Figure 1B, Figure 1C), suitable for implantation of a 34 mm Evolut™ R valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) as per standard practice at our centre. After vascular pre-closure with two Perclose devices (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and valve predilatation with a 24 mm NuCLEUS™ balloon (NuMED, Cornwall, ON, Canada), a 16 Fr EnVeo™ PRO delivery catheter system (DCS) (Medtronic) easily traversed the iliofemoral vessels and the aortic valve. Deployment of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) was challenging due to recurrent migration towards the left ventricle, despite guidewire manipulation and rapid ventricular pacing (Figure 1D, Figure 1E). During a third recapture manoeuvre, the THV would not completely re-enter the DCS capsule, and further rotation of the delivery handle (either direction) did not move the THV. The DCS was retrieved into the descending aorta where fluoroscopy revealed a fracture at the proximal end of the capsule (Figure 1F-Figure 1H). As the DCS was attached to its capsule, it was possible to remove the entire DCS en bloc via the transfemoral access by gentle retraction, without the requirement for additional manoeuvres. Surgical back-up was on stand-by in case of access-site complications. Haemostasis was achieved using the Perclose sutures. The patient suffered no additional complications and was successfully treated with a 29 mm SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) one month later.

Technical analysis of the DCS by the manufacturer confirmed complete fracture of the capsule and delamination of the nitinol-reinforcing frame. The DCS was otherwise intact and functioning appropriately. As no definitive cause was confirmed, a multifactorial origin was suggested. Potential causes include excessive tension and torque on the DCS due to anatomical factors (vascular calcification, tortuosity and angulation) and repeated recapture or over-capture of the THV. As such, careful patient selection and device manipulation during deployment and retrieval are advised, and adherence to the manufacturer recommendations of a maximum of three recapture manoeuvres is advised.

Conflict of interest statement

D. Mylotte is a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and MicroPort. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary data

To read the full content of this article, please download the PDF.

Moving image 1. Delivery catheter system advance.

Moving image 2. Transcatheter heart valve deployment and recapture.

Moving image 3. Delivery catheter system removal.

Volume 17 Number 4
Jul 20, 2021
Volume 17 Number 4
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

IMAGE IN CARDIOLOGY

10.4244/EIJY15M06_01 Mar 18, 2016
How to overcome a scary complication: a mesh-trapped balloon during a CoreValve® implantation procedure
Bayet G et al
free

Image – Interventional flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00826 Sep 18, 2020
ACURATE neo valve perforation after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Rück A et al
free

10.4244/EIJV17I10A135 Nov 19, 2021
Bioprosthetic valve fracture: haemodynamically effective but safe and clinically necessary?
Rodés-Cabau J and Alperi A
free
Trending articles
151.43

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
55.9

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00621 Feb 20, 2023
Long-term changes in coronary physiology after aortic valve replacement
Sabbah M et al
free
54.9

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01010 Jun 24, 2022
Device-related thrombus following left atrial appendage occlusion
Simard T et al
free
43.75

Clinical Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01091 Aug 5, 2022
Lifetime management of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a computed tomography simulation study
Medranda G et al
free
39.95

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00558 Feb 6, 2023
Permanent pacemaker implantation and left bundle branch block with self-expanding valves – a SCOPE 2 subanalysis
Pellegrini C et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved