Abstract
Simultaneous EVAR and TAVR is technically feasible and is a reliable option in high‐risk patients.
Keywords: abdominal aortic aneurysm, EVAR, severe aortic valve stenosis, simultaneous TAVR and EVAR, TAVR
Simultaneous EVAR and TAVR is technically feasible and is a reliable option in high‐risk patients.
1. INTRODUCTION
Single‐stage endovascular treatment of cardiac and vascular diseases with combined endovascular techniques has been increasingly reported in the contemporary literature. Although more complex cases are currently being treated with such techniques, there are still crucial issues regarding their safety and efficacy. Among such one‐stage treatment options, the simultaneous endovascular treatment of severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (SAVS) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) through Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) is not yet a common practice, as few centers have performed such combined procedures. In this case report, we present the management of a 78‐year‐old woman suffering from SAVS and AAA, who was treated with simultaneous endovascular aortic valve replacement and abdominal aortic aneurysm sac exclusion. Alongside, current issues on simultaneous TAVR and EVAR were analyzed and discussed after integrated review of the recent literature on this field.
Endovascular techniques are commonly used for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, such as severe aortic valve stenosis (SAVS) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Despite the fact that these interventional methods are well described for the treatment of each of these diseases separately, there are still current issues regarding the management of a combined intervention simultaneously. In this article, we present the case of a 78‐year‐old woman suffering from SAVS and AAA, who was treated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) simultaneously. A comprehensive review of the literature, highlighting some key points was also performed.
2. CASE REPORT
A 78‐year‐old female was admitted to the Department of Cardiology with dyspnea due to pulmonary edema. Her medical background consisted of known severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, hypertension, coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention of the right coronary artery 8 years ago, rectal cancer and breast cancer both treated with surgical excision, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy four and 1 year ago, respectively. Moreover, she suffered from peripheral vascular disease and she was treated with stent placement to the left subclavian artery a few years ago.
The findings of the ultrasound revealed that the aortic valve area (AVA) was 0.9 cm2, the maximal velocity (Vmax) was 3.8 m/s, the mean gradient was 36 mm Hg and the pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was calculated at 61 mm Hg, while the ejection fraction was more than 60%. In addition to this, an infrarenal aneurysm of 4.7 cm in size provoked probably repeated episodes of abdominal pain during the last months. The patient was categorized as NYHA class III, the total logistic score Euroscore was calculated 23.85% and the option of open surgery was rejected due to high perioperative risk. The patient was found eligible for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) and simultaneous treatment of the AAA with Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR). This decision was made based on the urgency of the TAVR due to dyspnea and EVAR due to symptomatic AAA while a dual antiplatelet treatment would be mandatory for at least 6 months postoperatively, based on the protocol used in our department (European Society of Cardiology/European Association of Percutaneous Interventions Guidelines, 2017, Indication IIA, level of evidence C). 1
The patient was operated under general anesthesia, while a team of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and interventional radiologists participated in the planning and the execution of the procedure.
Both femoral arteries were dissected and a 16 French Sheath was placed in the left femoral artery. The contemporary pacemaker's wire was inserted into the left femoral vein. Under controlled pacing, a 25 mm size Portico TM aortic valve was placed and ballooning was performed in order to eliminate central regurgitation. TAVR was completed uneventfully as the patient was hemodynamically stable and the fluoroscopic control for the aortic valve placement was satisfactory. (Figure 1) Subsequently, we proceeded to the EVAR with the placement of bifurcated stent graft ( Incraft Cordis AB2298, IL1012, IL1012 ). The TAVR and EVAR devices were deployed from the same side while the 16 French Sheath was used for both procedures. More specifically, the 13 F delivery system was positioned after the removal of the 16F Sheath and the bleeding was controlled by torniquet which was placed after the cutdown of both femoral arteries. The completion angiography revealed a satisfactory outcome. (Figures 2,3) The overall procedural time was 125 minutes, and the fluoroscopic time was 42 minutes. The total amount of contrast administrated was 280 mL.
FIGURE 1.
The final outcome after the effective aortic prosthesis placement with no sign of regurgitation (angiography)
FIGURE 2.
The depiction after the completion of EVAR with a satisfactory placement
FIGURE 3.
Final outcome after the EVAR completion ensuring a satisfying proximal sealing
The patient was discharged from the hospital at the 13th postoperative day in a very satisfactory clinical condition. The 3rd postoperative day the patient presented atrial fibrillation with increased cardiac palms which was treated with administration of amiodarone iv initially followed by per os treatment. The arrhythmia resolved and sinus rhythm was observed again the 9th day after the operation. Moreover, the patient's renal function was affected (with creatinine values at 2.1 and mg/dL and urea levels 108 mg/dL) at the 8th day, probably due to dehydration as a consequence of the diuretic treatment in combination to the low fluid intake from the patient. These two factors extended the hospitalization of the patient more than expected. The cardiac ultrasound confirmed a successful aortic valve replacement without the presence of regurgitation. The abdominal CT angiography showed that the stent graft was well‐positioned, with no endoleak apparent.
3. DISCUSSION
A comprehensive review of the literature on simultaneous TAVR and EVAR revealed 14 published articles from 9 different countries worldwide, in which the data of 16 patients was presented. (Table 1). The majority of the patients were older than 80 years (ages range between 67 and 93 years), with a male predominance and they suffered from symptomatic SAVS suggesting the need for urgent intervention. Furthermore, EVAR was performed due to AAA, except for one case of endoleak type II. Serious comorbidities were present in most of the cases (Table 1). In addition to this, we have to highlight that in all cases reported the general anesthesia was chosen, as in our case, despite the fact that sedation is used in the majority of the EVAR procedures and is commonly used for TAVR, when performed separately. This fact reveals that anesthesiologists and the rest of the medical team are not familiar with these combined procedures and general anesthesia is chosen as the safest option.
TABLE 1.
Demographics, cardiac parameters, abdominal aneurysm parameters and comorbidities gathered from all the published cases of simultaneous TAVR – EVAR throughout the literature
| Author | Country | Year | No patients | Age | Sex | Cardiac parameters | Abdominal Aneurysm parameters | Comorbidities | Logistic Euroscore (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MG | AVA | Vmax | NYHA | EF (%) | Symptoms | Location | Diameter (mm) | Length (mm) | ||||||||
| Koutsias et al 11 | Greece | 2020 | 2 | 78 | M | 50 | 0.8 | 4.6 | III | 50 | Yes | Infrarenal | 60 | 58 | CAD (CABG, recent PCI), HTN, COPD | N |
| 88 | M | 63 | NM | 5.1 | III | 65 | Yes | Infrarenal | 66 | 62 | CAD (PCI) | NM | ||||
| Natour et al 10 | Israel | 2018 | 2 | 86 | M | 34 | 0.6 | NM | NM | NM | Yes | Infrarenal | 60 | NM | NM | NM |
| 93 | M | 30 | 0.4 | NM | NM | NM | Yes | Infrarenal | >10 increase in 6 mo | NM | NM | NM | ||||
| Sato et al 9 | Japan | 2017 | 1 | 83 | M | 105 | NM | 5.5 | III | NM | Yes | Infrarenal | 57 | NM | NM | NM |
| Horiuchi et al 6 | Japan | 2016 | 1 | 81 | M | 42 | 0.7 | 4.2 | NM | NM | Yes | Endoleak II (previous EVAR) | 76 | NM | NM | NM |
| Orejola et al 2 | USA | 2016 | 1 | 83 | M | 49 | 0.8 | 3.1 | III | 35 | YES | Infrarenal | 55 | NM | CAD (CABG), MVR, HTN, CRF | 18.4 |
| Weber et al 17 | Germany | 2016 | 1 | 75 | M | 11 | 0.8 | 2.3 | NM | 20 | Yes | Infrarenal | 100 | 95 | Multiple procedures for aneursyms | NM |
| Rashid et al 12 | Australia | 2016 | 1 | 79 | M | 46 | 0.7 | NM | III | 60 | Yes | Infrarenal | 60 | 123 | COPD | NM |
| Kawashima et al 5 | Japan | 2016 | 1 | 91 | W | 36 | 0.4 | NM | NM | 64 | Yes | Infrarenal | 45 | NM | HTN, CAD, CRF, COPD | 25.6 |
| Koudoumas et al 14 | USA | 2015 | 1 | 74 | M | 43 | 0.48 | NM | NM | 30‐35 | Yes | Infrarenal | 5 | NM | COPD, DM, CD, NSCLC | NM |
| Binder et al 15 | Switzerland | 2015 | 1 | 67 | M | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | Yes | Infrarenal | NM | NM | CRF, Alchooholic, ST‐elevation at the time of admission | NM |
| Aluko et al 8 | USA | 2014 | 1 | 75 | M | 48 | 0.6 | 5.3 | III | NM | Yes | Infrarenal | 5.1 | NM | COPD | NM |
| Ayhan et al 4 | Turkey | 2014 | 1 | 83 | M | 27 | 0.5 | NM | III | 35 | Yes | Infrarenal | NM | NM | NM | 52.8 |
| Drury‐Smith et al 3 | United Kingdom | 2012 | 1 | 85 | M | 88 | 0.8 | NM | NM | NM | Yes | Infrarenal | 71.4 | 147 | NM | NM |
| Drury‐Smith et al 16 | United Kingdom | 2011 | 1 | 80 | M | 46 | 0.9 | NM | NM | 55 | Yes | Infrarenal | 68 | 70 | CAD (CABG), CRF | NM |
As in our case, the review data indicated that an urgent intervention was mandatory. Interestingly, what is currently debatable is whether these interventions should be performed simultaneously. Firstly, the replacement of the stenotic aortic valve is associated with hemodynamic changes and more specifically with the increase of systolic arterial pressure. In a study of 105 patients who were submitted to TAVR, the systolic arterial pressure increased on average 15 ± 31 mm Hg postoperative. 2 Subsequently, the elevation of the systolic arterial pressure provokes enhanced strain at the AAA wall and the risk of rupture is higher. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Secondly, another crucial parameter is the fact that the bioprosthesis implantation through TAVR requires the administration of dual antiplatelet treatment for at least 6 months after the procedure. Taking under consideration the increased risk deriving from elevated systolic pressure, a delay of more than 6 months would augment significantly the risk for acute events such as aortic rupture. 7 Moreover, the surgical risk for a second surgical procedure may be higher than the risk of a one‐stage intervention especially for patients with serious comorbidities receiving general anesthesia. 7
Another advantage of simultaneous TAVR and EVAR is that both procedures can be performed from the same access site while any combination of devices between TAVR and EVAR is feasible. According to Matsumura et al, the complication rate regarding the vascular access site reaches 8% for EVAR. 8 In addition to this, the reoperation for femoral artery could be troublesome and the quality of the access point may be affected from the previous surgery. Another very important issue is the fact that some endovascular catheters can be used in both procedures, thus contributing to the cost reduction, while the total length of stay can be also reduced when both procedures are performed at the same time. 9 , 10 , 11 Although the one‐stage procedure is associated with obvious advantages, there are some caveats that have to be underlined, such as the longer duration of the simultaneous procedure and the need for higher amounts of intravenous heparin. 9 As a result, it seems that the simultaneous TAVR and EVAR is an option with significant benefits in comparison to the two‐stage confrontation.
Concerning the endovascular materials that are necessary for the simultaneous operation (Table 2). The main manufacturers were equally represented in the published cases, while almost half of the physicians preferred the 18French sheath during TAVR.
TABLE 2.
Presentation of the materials and their characteristics that have been used for simultaneous TAVR‐EVAR in published cases
| Author | TAVR parameters | EVAR parameters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Size (mm) | Sheath Diameter | Type | Size (mm) | Length (mm) | |
| Koutsias et al 11 | CoreValve Evolut R | 29 | 14 Fr | bifurcated Endurant endoprosthesis | 28 × 16 | 166 |
| CoreValve Evolut R | 34 | 16 Fr | W. L. Gore & Associates | 28 × 14 | 140 | |
| Natour et al 10 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | |
| Sato et al 9 | CoreValve Evolut R | 26 | 18 Fr | W. L. Gore & Associates | 26 × 14.5 | 180 |
| Horiuchi et al 6 | Sapien XT valve | 26 | NM | W. L. Gore & Associates | NM | NM |
| Orejola et al 2 | Sapien XT valve | 26 | NM | W. L. Gore & Associates | 31 × 23 | NM |
| Weber et al 17 | SAPIEN 3 | 26 | 14 Fr | NM | NM | NM |
| Rashid et al 12 | LotusTM valve | 27 a | NM | Cook Zenith | 28 | 111 |
| Kawashima et al 5 | Sapien XT valve | 23 | NM | Cook Zenith | NM | NM |
| Koudoumas et al 14 | CoreValve Evolut R | 31 | 18Fr |
Ovation PrimeAbdominal |
20 | NM |
| Binder et al 15 | LotusTM valve | 27 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Aluko et al 8 | Sapien XT valve | 26 | NM | Endurantbifurcated EVAR stent | 32 × 16 | 145 |
| Ayhan et al 4 | Sapien XT valve | 26 | 18 | Cook Zenith | 36 | 130 |
| Drury‐Smith et al | CoreValve Evolut R | 29 | 18 | Cook Zenith | NM | NM |
| Drury‐Smith et al 16 | CoreValve Evolut R | 29 | 18 | Cook Zenith | NM | NM |
During the procedure the initial prosthesis (Lotus 25 mm) was displaced and therefore was replaced by a larger (Lotus 27 mm).
A controversial topic among experts is which procedure should be performed first. Our literature review showed that, in the majority of the cases, the TAVR preceded in 13 of the 16 cases, while 3 patients were submitted initially to EVAR. (Table 3). The supporters of the notion that TAVR should be first, highlighted that hemodynamic stability is the major concern in these critically ill patients. In addition to this, the TAVR‐first strategy reduces the risk of local thrombosis, as the larger catheters remain less time in place, and other intraoperative complications such as migration of the stent graft that was placed through EVAR or aneurysm rupture due to TAVR manipulations. 12 In our case, this strategy was chosen after evaluating the patient's clinical status and estimating the risk of hemodynamic collapse.
TABLE 3.
Data regarding procedural parameters and the outcomes of simultaneous TAVR‐EVAR
| Author | Sex | General Anesthesia | Access site | First procedure | Fluoroscopic time | Procedural time | Amount of contrast | Length of stay | Follow up/Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koutsias et al 11 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | 37 | NM | 385 | 10 | 2 y/None |
| M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | 40 | 138 | 350 | 8 | 1 y/None | |
| Natour et al 10 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | EVAR | NM | NM | NM | NM | 3 mo/None |
| M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | EVAR | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | |
| Sato et al 9 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | 52 | 138 | 182 | 8 | NM |
| Horiuchi et al 6 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | 7 | NM |
| Orejola et al 2 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | 13 | 1 y/None |
| Weber et al 17 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Rashid et al 12 | M | YES (Laryngeal) | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | NM | 6 mo/None |
| Kawashima et al 5 | W | YES | Femoral Bilateral | EVAR | NM | NM | NM | 22 | NM |
| Koudomas et al 14 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | 3 | 3 mo/None |
| Binder et al 15 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Aluko et al 8 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | 3 | 1 y/None |
| Ayhan et al 4 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | 7 | 1 mo/none |
| Drury‐Smith et al 2 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | NM | 6 mo/None |
| Drury‐Smith et al 16 | M | YES | Femoral Bilateral | TAVR | NM | NM | NM | 5 | NM |
On the other hand, those who prefer the EVAR‐first strategy signify that the risk of AAA rupture, aortic dissection, and peripheral embolism is higher when the aortic valve replacement is preceded. 10 According to this point of view, the possibility of vascular injury is lower when EVAR is deployed first as the abdominal stent graft acts like a inner coverage of the aorta eliminating the possibilities of damages due to TAVR device manipulations. 12 Currently, the decision is based mainly on the preference of the members of the team.
Another point that should be highlighted is the contrast‐induced renal failure. The incidence of this clinical condition ranges from 3% to 19% in different studies after EVAR and 8.3%–37.5%, respectively, after TAVR, while this deviation is related to significant differences of the criteria imposed for the diagnosis of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). 13 Despite the fact that there are different factors based on the patient's medical background related to renal insufficiency, the administration of high doses of contrast is the main predisposing factor. In Table 3, we presented the data concerning the amount of contrast administered; however, only 3 studies recorded this information, with the amount of contrast ranging from 182 to 385 mL. In our case, 280 mL of contrast was used. The clinical question is whether the combined interventional approach is beneficial, with lesser usage of contrast in comparison with sequential procedures, or is aggravating, with large dosages that increase the possibilities of AKI. Future recording of data on this field would be very important. Similarly, although the fluoroscopic time was lesser for the combined TAVR‐EVAR, scarce data were also presented. However, it seems that simultaneous intervention is related to lower exposure to radiation.
Although only minor complications were reported in the published articles, a selection bias cannot be ruled out. Serious complications, including major adverse cerebrovascular events, are commonly met after the implementation of such techniques. Rashid et al were the only researchers that have reported an intraoperative complication. More specifically, the bioprosthesis, which was undersized, migrated after its placement, and therefore had to be removed and replaced by a larger one. 14 Moreover, these operations are challenging even for experienced staff as anatomic factors can cause serious problems. Koudoumas et al have reported the case of a narrowed neck of aneurysm that required enhanced care and exceptional technique in order to be successful. 15 Additionally, such procedures can become even more complex as for example in one case that was described by Binder et al They reported the case of a man 67‐year‐old man who was submitted to TAVR, EVAR, permanent pacemaker placement, and ablation. 16 In any case, according to Drury‐Smith et al, who were the first that reported a simultaneous TAVR – EVAR, “the combination of careful assessment, improved trans‐catheter techniques and a true multi‐disciplinary team, can together enable the simultaneous treatment of some complex cardiovascular, previously treated surgically.” 17
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All authors have no conflict of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
NS: designed initially the manuscript, gathered the data from literature, and wrote the article. CA: designed the manuscript, supervised during the whole process. VP: analyzed the data, collected the images for the manuscript and partially contributed to the writing. KL: provided critical feedback and helped shape the final manuscript. TK: conceived the idea, involved in planning and supervision of the work. MA: designed and directed the project, had the central role in supervision of the manuscript.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
“All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None declared. No funding source.
Schizas N, Antonopoulos CN, Patris V, Lampropoulos K, Kratimenos T, Argiriou M. Current issues on simultaneous TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) and EVAR (Endovascular Aneurysm Repair). Clin Case Rep. 2021;9:e03929. 10.1002/ccr3.3929
The case has taken place at Evangelismos General Hospital, Athens, Greece
REFERENCES
- 1. Greco A, Capodanno D. Anticoagulation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: current status. Interv Cardiol. 2020;15:e02. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Perlman G, Loncar S, Pollak A, et al. Post‐procedural hypertension following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll CardiolIntv. 2013;2013(6):472‐478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Orejola WC, Elmann EM, Wilderman MJ, et al. Combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular aortic repair: a transfemoral approach dilemma. J Surgery. 2016;4(1):3. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Drury‐Smith M, Garnham A, Khogali S. Sequential trans‐catheter aortic valve implantationand abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:784‐788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Ayhan H, Durmaz T, Keles T, et al. Simultaneously successful transfemoral aortic valveimplantation and endovascular repair of thoracic aortic saccular aneurysm. Int Heart J. 2014;55:459‐462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kawashima H, Watanabe Y, Kozuma K. Successful transfemoral aortic valve implantation through aorticstent graft after endovascular repair of abdominal aorticaneurysm. Cardiovasc IntervTher. 2017;32(2):165‐169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Horiuchi Y, Izumo M, Kusuhara T, Yokozuka M, Taketani T, Tanabe K. Combined transcatheter aortic valve implantation and type II endoleak repair after endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cardiovasc IntervTher. 2017;32(3):304‐307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Matsumura JS, Brewster DC, Makaroun MS, Naftel DC. A multicenter controlled clinical trial of open versus endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:262‐271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Aluko Y, Diehl L, Jacoby R, et al. Simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular repair for critical aortic stenosis and large abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;16:254‐258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sato Y, Horiuchi Y, Yahaki K, et al. Simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation and endovascular aneurysm repair in a patient with very severe aortic stenosis with abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Cardiol Cases. 2018;17:123‐125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Natour M, Rabin A, Avraham E, et al. Combined urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation and endovascular aneurysm repair for symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg Nov Suppl. 2018.68(5):E 140. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Koutsias S, Karaolanis G, Papafaklis M, et al. Simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation and infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair for severe aortic stenosis and abdominal aortic aneurysm: report of 2 cases and literature review. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020;54(6):544‐548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Jhaveri K, Saratzis A, Wanchoo R, Sarafidis P. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve repair (TAVR) associated acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2017;91(6):1312‐1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Rashid H, McCormick L, Cooley R, Meredith I. Simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation and driveby endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a case of lotus valve retrieved and replaced due to an undersized valve after an endovascular aneurysm repair. Cardiovasc Interv and Ther. 2017;32:299‐303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Koudoumas D, Iyer V, Curl R. Simultaneous percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascularabdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a high risk patient with hostile aortic neck, a case report. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10:184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Binder R, Maisano F, Lachat M. First report of simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, and permanent pacemaker implantation after multi‐vessel coronary stenting and left atrial appendage occlusion. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(37):2543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Drury‐Smith M, Garnham A, Khogali S. Critical Aortic Stenosis in a patient with a large saccular abdominal aortic aneurysm: simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation and drive‐by endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:1014‐1018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]