Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Percutaneous device closure of paravalvular leak

Calvert, Patrick A.; Northridge, David B.; Malik, Iqbal S.; Shapiro, Leonard; Ludman, Peter; Qureshi, Shakeel A.; Mullen, Michael; Henderson, Robert; Turner, Mark; Been, Martin; Walsh, Kevin P.; Casserly, Ivan; Morrison, Lindsay; Walker, Nicola L.; Thomson, John; Spence, Mark S.; Mahadevan, Vaikom S.; Hoye, Angela; Maccarthy, Philip A.; Daniels, Matthew J.; Clift, Paul; Davies, William R.; Adamson, Philip D.; Morgan, Gareth; Aggarwal, Suneil K.; Ismail, Yasmin; Ormerod, Julian O.M.; Khan, Habib R.; Chandran, Sujay Subash; De Giovanni, Joseph; Rana, Bushra S.; Ormerod, Oliver; Hildick-Smith, David

Authors

Patrick A. Calvert

David B. Northridge

Iqbal S. Malik

Leonard Shapiro

Peter Ludman

Shakeel A. Qureshi

Michael Mullen

Robert Henderson

Mark Turner

Martin Been

Kevin P. Walsh

Ivan Casserly

Lindsay Morrison

Nicola L. Walker

John Thomson

Mark S. Spence

Vaikom S. Mahadevan

Angela Hoye

Philip A. Maccarthy

Matthew J. Daniels

Paul Clift

William R. Davies

Philip D. Adamson

Gareth Morgan

Suneil K. Aggarwal

Yasmin Ismail

Julian O.M. Ormerod

Habib R. Khan

Sujay Subash Chandran

Joseph De Giovanni

Bushra S. Rana

Oliver Ormerod

David Hildick-Smith



Abstract

Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004-2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure (P

Citation

Calvert, P. A., Northridge, D. B., Malik, I. S., Shapiro, L., Ludman, P., Qureshi, S. A., Mullen, M., Henderson, R., Turner, M., Been, M., Walsh, K. P., Casserly, I., Morrison, L., Walker, N. L., Thomson, J., Spence, M. S., Mahadevan, V. S., Hoye, A., Maccarthy, P. A., Daniels, M. J., …Hildick-Smith, D. (2016). Percutaneous device closure of paravalvular leak. Circulation, 134(13), 934-944. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022684

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Aug 5, 2016
Online Publication Date Sep 1, 2016
Publication Date Sep 27, 2016
Deposit Date Feb 8, 2021
Journal Circulation
Print ISSN 0009-7322
Electronic ISSN 1524-4539
Publisher Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 134
Issue 13
Pages 934-944
DOI https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022684
Public URL https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/3588196
Publisher URL https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022684