eISSN: 1897-4295
ISSN: 1734-9338
Advances in Interventional Cardiology/Postępy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
4/2023
vol. 19
 
Share:
Share:
Short communication

Tunnel stent technique as an alternative treatment for left main protection in valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Francesco Meucci
1
,
Francesca Maria Di Muro
1
,
Pietro Martinucci
2
,
Miroslava Stolcova
1
,
Carlo Di Mario
1
,
Emanuele Cecchi
3

  1. Structural Interventional Cardiology Division, Department of Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
  2. Cardiology Division, Nuovo Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio, Florence, Italy
  3. General Cardiology Division, Department of Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
Adv Interv Cardiol 2023; 19, 4 (74): 371–374
Online publish date: 2023/12/22
Article file
Get citation
 
 

A 66-year-old woman was referred to our hospital for valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). She had a history of severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, undergoing surgical replacement with a bioprosthesis in 2015. Two years after that she underwent REDO surgery to replace the aortic valve and ascending aorta with Bentall aortic homograft no. 23 for prosthesis endocarditis. The patient was asymptomatic until March 2021 when echocardiography showed severe stenosis for valve deterioration. At pre-procedural computed tomography (CT) the patient was found to be at high risk of left coronary artery occlusion (CAO) [13] (Supplementary Figure S1 A–C), so we opted for a transfemoral TAVI using a self-expandable valve with coronary artery protection. The left main (LM) was cannulated with an EBU catheter 3.5 from the left femoral artery and a Xience stent 4.0 × 18 mm was put in the mid left anterior descending artery (LAD). A CoreValve Evolut Pro+ 26 mm was introduced and, after correct positioning, was partially opened during ventricular pacing at 120 bpm. Since angiography did not indicate risk of CAO, we slowly retracted the EBU catheter without removing the LAD wire and completed valve deployment. Angiographic control showed an image at risk of left CAO, so we performed modified chimney stenting – the “tunnel technique”. We re-accessed the LM with another EBU catheter, leaving the wire in the LAD, then, after LAD rewiring, a Xience 4.0 × 12 mm stent and an Onyx 4.5 × 15 mm stent were deployed in overlap from the LM ostium to the Core-Valve frame, creating a protective tunnel. All the phases of tunnel stent technique are shown in Figures 1 and 2, where they are compared with chimney stenting ones. At post-procedural CT also with three-dimensional reconstruction a significant protrusion of the tunnel stent in the aortic lumen was excluded (Supplementary Figure S1 D).

Figure 1

The tunnel stent technique starts as a chimney stenting procedure with left coronary artery cannulation, coronary wiring and stent passage through the wire in the mid LAD after which the aortic prosthesis is positioned in cusp overlap projection (LAO 19° and caudal 16°) (A); opening of about 2/3 of the prosthesis during ventricular pacing at 120 bpm in left oblique projection (LAO 36°) with coronary angiographic control and release of the valve in cusp overlap (B); final angiography showing an image at risk of CAO. After the retraction of the first catheter, leaving the coronary wire in situ, left coronary is re‑accessed with another catheter through the cells of the prosthetic valve frame and another wire is put in the coronary (C). One or more stents are implanted between the frame of the aortic prosthesis and the left coronary ostium (D)

/f/fulltexts/PWKI/52079/PWKI-19-52079-g001_min.jpg
Figure 2

Panels A to F present the common steps of the tunnel technique and chimney stenting with the red arrow indicating from panels G to L the final steps of tunnel stenting (chimney protected) as described in Figure 1 legend; the green arrow indicates instead the final steps of direct chimney stenting with stent retraction (M) as well as stent dilation and final release (N, O)

/f/fulltexts/PWKI/52079/PWKI-19-52079-g002_min.jpg

With this case we present an alternative strategy to chimney stenting and to BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) technique [4] for ViV TAVI at high risk of CAO. Tunnel technique is more complex than chimney technique but has several advantages (Table I). Its aim is to create a continuous tunnel between the coronary ostia and the prosthesis frame, which should be as straight as possible and, even if some curves are present in its course, these are straighter than the angle created with the chimney technique, possibly leading to a reduction in the incidence of stent thrombosis [5, 6].

Table I

Advantages and disadvantages of tunnel vs. chimney stenting technique

Advantages/disadvantagesTunnel stentingChimney stenting
Procedure lengthLongerShorter
Contrast mediumHigherLower
Risk of coronary artery occlusionHigherLower
Coronary re-access through prosthesisRequiredNot required
Stent angle with respect to prosthesis frameMore physiologicalLess physiological
Risk of subsequent stent thrombosisPossibly lowerPossibly higher

However, this procedure also has several downsides (Table I). First, when retrieving the catheter from the LM, though leaving the coronary wire in situ, before re-accessing the coronary, acute CAO may occur, so in patients at higher risk of CAO the chimney technique should be preferred.

Second, the tunnel technique is longer than the chimney technique and may require a larger amount of contrast medium, so it should not be chosen in patients at higher risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.

Finally, coronary re-access may be difficult and an optimal alignment with the coronary ostium may not always be possible: this should not lead to making multiple attempts of coronary re-access to avoid complications.

For all these reasons, the choice of this technique requires a careful selection of patients who could benefit from it without intra- and peri-procedural complications.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Giacomo Gelati for his contribution in the creation of Figure 2.

Conflict of interest

One of the authors has received research or educational grants from Abbott, Amgen, Asahi Inteec., AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, CSL Behring, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards, Medtronic, Menarini, Pfizer, Sanofi, Shockwave, Teleflex and Volcano/Philips; another author reports receiving speaker and consultation fees from Medtronic, Edwards and Boston Scientific. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

1 

Rosseel L, Rosseel M, Hynes B, et al. Chimney stenting during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interv Cardiol 2020; 15: e09.

2 

Ribeiro HB, Webb JG, Makkar RR, et al. Predictive factors, management, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from a large multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 1552-62.

3 

Ribeiro HB, Nombela-Franco L, Urena M, et al. Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6: 452-61.

4 

Tagliari AP, Petersen Saadi R, Medronha EF, et al. The use of BASILICA technique to prevent coronary obstruction in a TAVI-TAVI procedure. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 5534.

5 

Mercanti F, Rosseel L, Neylon A, et al. Chimney stenting for coronary occlusion during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the Chimney Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13: 751-61.

6 

Palmerini T, Chakravarty T, Saia F, et al. Coronary protection to prevent coronary obstruction during aortic valve replacement: a multicenter international registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13: 739-47.

Copyright: © 2023 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.