The aim of this study was to describe previously unrecognised or under-recognised adverse events associated with Melody® valve implantation.

In rare diseases and conditions, it is typically not feasible to conduct large-scale safety trials before drug or device approval. Therefore, post-market surveillance mechanisms are necessary to detect rare but potentially serious adverse events.

We reviewed the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database and conducted a structured literature review to evaluate adverse events associated with on- and off-label Melody® valve implantation. Adverse events were compared with those described in the prospective Investigational Device Exemption and Post-Market Approval Melody® transcatheter pulmonary valve trials.

We identified 631 adverse events associated with “on-label” Melody® valve implants and 84 adverse events associated with “off-label” implants. The most frequent “on-label” adverse events were similar to those described in the prospective trials including stent fracture (n=210) and endocarditis (n=104). Previously unrecognised or under-recognised adverse events included stent fragment embolisation (n=5), device erosion (n=4), immediate post-implant severe valvar insufficiency (n=2), and late coronary compression (n=2 cases at 5 days and 3 months after implantation). Under-recognised adverse events associated with off-label implantation included early valve failure due to insufficiency when implanted in the tricuspid position (n=7) and embolisation with percutaneous implantation in the mitral position (n=5).

Post-market passive surveillance does not demonstrate a high frequency of previously unrecognised serious adverse events with “on-label” Melody® valve implantation. Further study is needed to evaluate safety of “off-label” uses.

Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation is usually performed from a femoral venous – transfemoral – approach, but this may not be the optimal vascular access option in some patients. This study aimed to determine which group of patients might benefit from an internal jugular – transjugular – approach for transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation.

This multicentre retrospective study included all patients who underwent attempted transcatheter pulmonary valve placement in the right ventricular outflow tract between April 2010 and June 2012 at two large congenital heart centres. Patients were divided into two groups based on venous access site – transfemoral or transjugular. Patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and complications were compared between groups.

Of 81 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (median age 16.4 years), the transjugular approach was used in 14 patients (17%). The transjugular group was younger (median age 11.9 versus 17.3 years), had lower body surface area (mean 1.33 versus 1.61 m2), more often had moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation (29% versus 7%), and had a higher ratio of right ventricle-to-systemic systolic pressure (mean 82.4 versus 64.7). Patients requiring a transjugular approach after an unsuccessful transfemoral approach had longer fluoroscopic times and procedure duration.

The transjugular approach for transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation is used infrequently but is more often used in younger and smaller patients. Technical limitations from a transfemoral approach may be anticipated if there is moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation or higher right ventricular pressures. In these patients, a transjugular approach should be considered early.