JACC. Case reports · 2025
Unpredictable Mechanical Mitral Valve Leaflet Motion in a Patient With Continuous-Flow LVAD.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khatri Wasi, Fortna Sarah, Hochstetler Alexandra, Rao Roopa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with a pre-existing mechanical mitral valve (MV) who undergo left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation pose unique challenges owing to interactions between the device and valve.
CASE SUMMARY: A 56-year-old man with a history of mechanical MV replacement and multiple interventions underwent LVAD implantation. After LVAD, the mechanical MV exhibited dynamic changes of leaflet mobility, from both stuck open to both moving freely. Despite these abnormalities, there was no clinically significant mitral regurgitation or hemodynamic impact. The patient was managed without surgery or thrombolytics and experienced no adverse clinical consequences related to mechanical MV dysfunction.
DISCUSSION: This case highlights the dynamic behavior of a mechanical MV after LVAD implantation, with variable leaflet positioning without significant mitral regurgitation or thromboembolic complications.
TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: The interaction between LVADs and mechanical valves can result in unexpected alterations in valve function and intracardiac hemodynamics, underscoring the need for individualized care. In select cases, conservative management may be appropriate.
CASE SUMMARY: A 56-year-old man with a history of mechanical MV replacement and multiple interventions underwent LVAD implantation. After LVAD, the mechanical MV exhibited dynamic changes of leaflet mobility, from both stuck open to both moving freely. Despite these abnormalities, there was no clinically significant mitral regurgitation or hemodynamic impact. The patient was managed without surgery or thrombolytics and experienced no adverse clinical consequences related to mechanical MV dysfunction.
DISCUSSION: This case highlights the dynamic behavior of a mechanical MV after LVAD implantation, with variable leaflet positioning without significant mitral regurgitation or thromboembolic complications.
TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: The interaction between LVADs and mechanical valves can result in unexpected alterations in valve function and intracardiac hemodynamics, underscoring the need for individualized care. In select cases, conservative management may be appropriate.