Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 1;77(1):53.
doi: 10.1186/s43044-025-00645-z.

Shockwave lithotripsy-assisted TAVI in a patient with severely calcified peripheral arteries and porcelain aorta

Affiliations

Shockwave lithotripsy-assisted TAVI in a patient with severely calcified peripheral arteries and porcelain aorta

Uzeyir Rahimov et al. Egypt Heart J. .

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the standard treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS), particularly in high-risk patients. However, peripheral artery disease with extensive vascular calcification poses challenges for transfemoral access. Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has emerged as a promising technique to facilitate vascular access in such cases.

Case presentation: A 73-year-old male presented with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. His condition necessitated urgent coronary revascularization and later, TAVI for severe AS. Pre-procedural computed tomography angiography revealed severe circumferential calcification of the entire aorta and both iliac and femoral arteries. Due to the extensive calcification and stenosis of the left common iliac artery, IVL was performed to optimize vessel diameter prior to TAVI. Post-IVL, optimal luminal expansion was achieved (6.8 mm), allowing safe passage of the delivery sheath.

Conclusion: IVL-assisted transfemoral TAVI is a safe and effective strategy in patients with extensive iliofemoral calcifications.

Keywords: Aortic stenosis; Lithotripsy; TAVI.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Left—Descending aorta and iliac arteries, Right—Porcelain aorta
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A—Intravascular lithotripsy, B—Diameter of left iliac artery post-intravascular lithotripsy
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A—Advancement of prosthetic valve through iliac artery, B—Implantation of prosthetic valve

References

    1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363:1597–1607 - PubMed
    1. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG et al (2011) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 364:2187–2198. 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510 - PubMed
    1. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, Kleiman NS, Sondergaard L, Mumtaz M et al (2017) Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 376:1321–1331 - PubMed
    1. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR et al (2015) 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 385(9986):2477–2484. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7 - PubMed
    1. Nardi G, De Backer O, Saia F et al (2022) Peripheral intravascular lithotripsy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a multicentre observational study. EuroIntervention 17(17):e1397–e1406. 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00581 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources