Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
A 55-year-old man had mechanical aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation. During follow-up, precordial echocardiography revealed paravalvular leak (PVL) and moderate residual aortic regurgitation. Percutaneous closure of the leak was recommended, and Amplatzer® vascular plug (9-PLUG-012, AGA Medical Corporation, Plymouth, MN, USA) was implanted under general anaesthesia with fluoroscopic and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) guidance. After the procedure, sudden onset of ventricular arrhythmia was noted; echocardiogram showed dislodgement of the plug. During emergent exploration, intraoperative TOE showed vascular plug tumbling like a yo-yo in the left ventricle (LV) with neither retrograde migration to the left atrium nor occluding the aortic valve (figure 1, yellow arrow; online supplementary movie 1). Surgical extraction of the device and aortic valve replacement were performed smoothly.
According to the preprocedural computed tomography, one possible reason for the dislodged device being trapped in the LV was the following. During the systolic phase, the leak size decreased and so the plug could not be squeezed into the aorta (figure 2A). During the diastolic phase, the anatomical leak size increased and the pressure gradient across the leak could push the plug back into the LV (figure 2B).
The feasibility and safety of percutaneous closure of PVL are still under debate. However, acute complications such as this case should be alerted as percutaneous closure of PVL is becoming popular. Precise preprocedural evaluation of the defect with multiple imaging modalities and intraprocedural TOE monitoring are useful precautions to prevent and identify possible dislodgement of the vascular plug.
This work was performed at the National Taiwan University Hospital.
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.