Volume 30, Issue 3 pp. 212-216
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
Free to Read

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty in contemporary practice

Kully Sandhu

Kully Sandhu

Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
Suresh Krishnamoorthy

Suresh Krishnamoorthy

University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
Ashari Afif

Ashari Afif

Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
James Nolan

James Nolan

Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
Mark G. Gunning

Corresponding Author

Mark G. Gunning

Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Correspondence

Dr. M. Gunning, Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6TQ, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 09 May 2017
Citations: 8

Abstract

Background

There has been a revival of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) for severe aortic stenosis, as a result of an increasing number of patients undergoing trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, there has not been universal adoption of BAV as a standalone, nor bridging therapy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the practice at our institution between June 2009 and May 2016 was performed. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data on all patients were collected.

Results

A total of 200 patients with a median age of 82 years and severe symptomatic aortic stenosis underwent BAV from June 2009 to May 2016. All patients had appreciable comorbidity with a mean logistic Euro SCORE of 48 ± 11 and mean standard Euro SCORE 15 ± 4. BAV was performed for palliation in 118 (59%), as a bridging therapy for TAVI in 55 (27.5%) and bridging to surgical AVR in 27 patients (13.5%), respectively. Major complications occurred in 14 patients (7%) including 2 in-patient deaths (1%). A statistically significant improvement in symptoms and a decrease in trans-valvular gradient were observed.

Conclusion

BAV is an effective treatment strategy, either as a bridge to definitive therapy or as a palliative procedure, with an acceptable mortality. BAV is associated with a significant improvement in symptoms and is valuable as a palliative treatment in high-risk patients, where no other invasive option is available.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.