Temporal Trends and Clinical Consequences of Wait Times for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ACC/SCAI Position Statement

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Triage considerations for patients referred for structural heart disease intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ACC/SCAI position statement

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment, as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Facilitating transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the era of COVID-19: Recommendations for programmes

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to significantly impact the treatment of people living with aortic stenosis, and access to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) programmes require unique coordinated processes that are currently experiencing multiple disruptions and are guided by rapidly evolving protocols. We present a series of recommendations for TAVI programmes to adapt to the new demands, based on recent evidence and the international expertise of nurse leaders and collaborators in this field. Although recommended in most guidelines, the uptake of the role of the TAVI programme nurse is uneven across international regions. COVID-19 is further highlighting why a nurse-led central point of coordination and communication is a vital asset for patients and programmes. We propose an alternative streamlined evaluation pathway to minimize patients' pre-procedure exposure to the hospital environment while ensuring appropriate treatment decision and shared decision-making. The competing demands created by COVID-19 require vigilant wait list management, with risk stratification, telephone surveillance and optimized triage and prioritization. A minimalist approach with close scrutiny of all parts of the procedure has become an imperative to avoid any complications and ensure patients' accelerated recovery. Lastly, we outline a nurse-led protocol of rapid mobilization and reconditioning as an effective strategy to facilitate safe next-day discharge home. As the pandemic abates, TAVI programmes must facilitate access to care without compromising patient safety, enable hospitals to manage the competing demands created by COVID-19 and establish new processes to support patients living with valvular heart disease.

Managing Severe Aortic Stenosis in the COVID-19 Era

The novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created uncertainty in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis. This population experiences high mortality from delays in treatment of valve disease but is largely overlapping with the population of highest mortality from COVID-19. The authors present strategies for managing patients with severe aortic stenosis in the COVID-19 era. The authors suggest transitions to virtual assessments and consultation, careful pruning and planning of necessary testing, and fewer and shorter hospital admissions. These strategies center on minimizing patient exposure to COVID-19 and expenditure of human and health care resources without significant sacrifice to patient outcomes during this public health emergency. Areas of innovation to improve care during this time include increased use of wearable and remote devices to assess patient performance and vital signs, devices for facile cardiac assessment, and widespread use of clinical protocols for expedient discharge with virtual physical therapy and cardiac rehabilitation options.

Guidelines for Balancing Priorities in Structural Heart Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many hospitals have been asked to postpone elective and surgical cases. This begs the question, “What is elective in structural heart disease intervention?” The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions/American College of Cardiology consensus statement is, unfortunately, non-specific and insufficient in its scope and scale of response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We propose guidelines that are practical, multidisciplinary, implementable, and urgent. We believe that this will provide a helpful framework for our colleagues to manage their practices during the surge and peak phases of the pandemic.

General principles that apply across structural heart disease interventions include tracking and reporting cardiovascular outcomes, “healthcare distancing,” preserving vital resources and personnel, shared decision-making between the heart team and hospital administration on resource-intensive cases, and considering delaying research cases.

Specific guidance for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and MitraClip procedures varies according to pandemic phase. During the surge phase, treatment should broadly be limited to those at increased risk of complications in the near term. During the peak phase, treatment should be limited to inpatients for whom it may facilitate discharge.

Keeping our patients and ourselves safe is paramount, as well as justly rationing resources.

•

Many elective and surgical cases have been postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

We propose guidelines for managing structural heart disease during the pandemic.

•

General principles include preserving vital resources and personnel.

•

Specific guidance for TAVR and mitral valve repair changes with pandemic phase.

•

Keeping our patients and ourselves safe and justly rationing resources is paramount.

The Use of Decision Modelling to Inform Timely Policy Decisions on Cardiac Resource Capacity During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In Ontario on March 16, 2020, a directive was issued to all acute care hospitals to halt nonessential procedures in anticipation of a potential surge in COVID-19 patients. This included scheduled outpatient cardiac surgical and interventional procedures that required the use of intensive care units, ventilators, and skilled critical care personnel, given that these procedures would draw from the same pool of resources required for critically ill COVID-19 patients. We adapted the COVID-19 Resource Estimator (CORE) decision analytic model by adding a cardiac component to determine the impact of various policy decisions on the incremental waitlist growth and estimated waitlist mortality for 3 key groups of cardiovascular disease patients: coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, and arrhythmias. We provided predictions based on COVID-19 epidemiology available in real-time, in 3 phases. First, in the initial crisis phase, in a worst case scenario, we showed that the potential number of waitlist related cardiac deaths would be orders of magnitude less than those who would die of COVID-19 if critical cardiac care resources were diverted to the care of COVID-19 patients. Second, with better local epidemiology data, we predicted that across 5 regions of Ontario, there may be insufficient resources to resume all elective outpatient cardiac procedures. Finally in the recovery phase, we showed that the estimated incremental growth in waitlist for all cardiac procedures is likely substantial. These outputs informed timely data-driven decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the provision of cardiovascular care.

Impact of procedural capacity on transcatheter aortic valve replacement wait times and outcomes: a study of regional variation in Ontario, Canada

Background

There has been rapid growth in the demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has the potential to overwhelm current capacity. This imbalance between demand and capacity may lead to prolonged wait times, and subsequent adverse outcomes while patients are on the waitlist. We sought to understand the relationship between regional differences in capacity, TAVR wait times and morbidity/mortality on the waitlist.

Methods and results

We modelled the effect of TAVR capacity, defined as the number of TAVR procedures per million residents/region, on the hazard of having a TAVR in Ontario from April 2012 to March 2017. Our primary outcome was the time from referral to a TAVR procedure or other off-list reasons on the waitlist/end of the observation period as measured in days. Clinical outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisations or heart failure-related hospitalisations while on the waitlist for TAVR. There was an almost fourfold difference in TAVR capacity across the 14 regions in Ontario, ranging from 31.5 to 119.5 TAVR procedures per million residents. The relationship between TAVR capacity and wait times was complex and non-linear. In general, increased capacity was associated with shorter wait times (p<0.001), reduced mortality (HR 0.94; p=0.08) and all-cause hospitalisations (p=0.009).

Conclusions

The results of the present study have important policy implications, suggesting that there is a need to improve TAVR capacity, as well as develop wait-time strategies to triage patients, in order to decrease wait times and mitigate the hazard of adverse patient outcomes while on the waitlist.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Position Statement for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement has rapidly changed the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is now the standard of care for patients believed to be inoperable or at high surgical risk, and a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for those at intermediate surgical risk. Recent clinical trial data have shown the benefits of this technology in patients at low surgical risk as well. This update of the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society TAVI position statement incorporates clinical evidence to provide a practical framework for patient selection that does not rely on surgical risk scores but rather on individual patient evaluation of risk and benefit from either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement. In addition, this statement features new wait time categories and treatment time goals for patients accepted for TAVI. Institutional requirements and recommendations for operator training and maintenance of competency have also been revised to reflect current standards. Procedural considerations such as decision-making for concomitant coronary intervention, antiplatelet therapy after intervention, and follow-up guidelines are also discussed. Finally, we suggest that all patients with aortic stenosis might benefit from evaluation by the heart team to determine the optimal individualized treatment decision.

Association Between Wait Time for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Early Postprocedural Outcomes

Background

Rapid growth in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) demand has translated to inadequate access, reflected by prolonged wait times. Increasing wait times are associated with important adverse outcomes while on the wait‐list; however, it is unknown if prolonged wait times influence postprocedural outcomes. Our objective was to determine the association between TAVR wait times and postprocedural outcomes.

Methods and Results

In this population‐based study in Ontario, Canada, we identified all TAVR procedures between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2016. Wait time was defined as the number of days between initial referral and the procedure. Primary outcomes of interest were 30‐day all‐cause mortality and all‐cause readmission. Multivariable regression models incorporated wait time as a nonlinear variable, using cubic splines. The study cohort included 2170 TAVR procedures, of which 1741 cases were elective and 429 were urgent. There was a significant, nonlinear relationship between TAVR wait time and post‐TAVR 30‐day mortality, as well as 30‐day readmission. We observed an increased hazard associated with shorter wait times that diminished as wait times increased. This statistically significant nonlinear relationship was seen in the unadjusted model as well as after adjusting for clinical variables. However, after adjusting for case urgency status, there was no relationship between wait times and postprocedural outcomes. In sensitivity analyses restricted to either only elective or only urgent cases, there was no relationship between wait times and postprocedural outcomes.

Conclusions

Wait time has a complex relationship with postprocedural outcomes that is mediated entirely by urgency status. This suggests that further research should elucidate factors that predict hospitalization requiring urgent TAVR while on the wait list.

Advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Evidence in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has accumulated rapidly over the last few years and its application to clinical decision making are becoming more important. In this review, we discuss the advances in TAVR for patient selection, expanding indications, complications, and emerging technologies.

[Best conditions to perform TAVI procedures]

Well conditions to perform TAVI procedures are guided by ministry regulation and dedicated to centers with both on-site a cath-lab and cardiac surgery. Heart Team decision is mandatory to select patient for TAVI and local anesthesia is recommended. Conditions changes would be discuss according to increased procedures number related to indications evolution.

Incidence, Predictors, and In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation After Nonelective Admission in Comparison With Elective Admission: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database

Candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are generally older with multiple co-morbidities and are therefore susceptible to nonelective admissions before scheduled TAVI. Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of TAVI after nonelective admission are under-explored. We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, an administrative database, from January 2012 to September 2015 to identify hospitalization in those age ≥50 who had transarterial TAVI. A propensity-matched cohort was created to compare the outcomes between nonelective and elective admission who had TAVI. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A total of 9,521 TAVI admissions were identified during the study period. Of these admissions, 22.3% were nonelective admissions. Pulmonary circulation disorders (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.38), anemia (aOR 1.54), congestive heart failure (aOR 1.37), chronic kidney disease (aOR 1.28; all p <0.001), and atrial fibrillation (aOR 1.17, p = 0.006) were independent risk factors for nonelective admission. In a propensity-matched cohort (1,683 admissions in each cohort), in-hospital mortality was similar (4.0% vs 2.8%, p = 0.052). Nonelective admissions had higher rates of acute myocardial infarction (5.2% vs 0.7%), fatal arrhythmia (9.4% vs 6.0%), acute kidney injury (25.9% vs 17.1%), respiratory failure requiring intubation (0.26% vs 0.19%), cardiogenic shock (5.1% vs 2.1%; all p <0.001), and bleeding requiring transfusion (13.1% vs 10.1%, p = 0.006) during the index-hospitalization. Hospital length of stay (11.4 days vs 6.5 days, p <0.001) and hospital cost ($68,669 vs $57,442, p <0.001) were both increased in nonelective admissions. Nonelective admission accounted for approximately one-fifth of total TAVI with significantly different cohort profiles. Our results suggest that nonelective TAVI has higher adverse outcomes and increased health resource utilization. Expedition in TAVI process in high-risk cohorts may result in better outcomes.

Profiling Hospital Performance Based on Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Public reporting of hospital-level outcomes is increasingly common as a means to target quality improvement strategies to ensure the delivery of optimal care. Despite the rapid dissemination of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there is a paucity of reliable case-mix adjustment models for hospital profiling in TAVR. Our objective was to develop and evaluate different models for calculating risk-standardized all-cause mortality rates (RSMRs) post-TAVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this population-based study in Ontario, Canada, we identified all patients who underwent a TAVR procedure between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2016. For each hospital, we calculated 30-day and 1-year RSMR, using 2-level hierarchical logistic regression models that accounted for patient-specific demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the clustering of patients within the same hospital using a hospital-specific random effects. We classified each hospital into one of 3 groups: performing worse than expected, better than expected, or performing as expected, based on whether the 95% CI of the RSMR was above, below, or included the provincial average mortality rate, respectively. Our cohort consisted of 2129 TAVR procedures performed at 10 hospitals. The observed mortality was 7.0% at 30 days and 16.4% at 1 year, with a range of 4% to 10% and 8% to 22%, respectively, across hospitals. We developed case-mix adjustment models using 28 clinically relevant variables. Using 30-day and 1-year RSMR to profile each hospital, we found that all hospitals performed as expected, with 95% CI that included the provincial average.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant interhospital variation in RSMR among hospitals, suggesting that quality improvement efforts should be directed at aspects other than the variation in observed mortality.

Impact of Referral Sources and Waiting Times on the Failure to Quit Smoking: One-Year Follow-Up of an Italian Cohort Admitted to a Smoking Cessation Service

In Italy, the National Health Service offers specialized evidence-based support to smokers who would like to quit through smoking cessation (SC) services. We conducted a two-year prospective study, involving all 288 subjects treated for smoking cessation at the SC service of Reggio Emilia, to assess the association of referral sources and waiting times with the risk of treatment failure, by following participants up to one year after the quit date. We performed Cox-regression analysis, including demographic and smoking-related characteristics as confounding variables. The treatment failure rate at 12 months was 59.4% (171/288), including only 12 subjects lost to follow-up. The main mode of entry was self-referral (42.4%), followed by 32.6% from general practice, 17.4% from hospital and 7.6% from other sources. Only 27.8% participants were involved in the SC-program within 60 days of the first contact, as the guidelines suggest. The risk of treatment failure at 12 months showed little association with the type of referral source, while it correlated with waiting times ≥ 60 days (hazard ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval 1.10⁻2.29). This study provides evidence of long-term high quit rates from a SC service, with few subjects lost to follow-up and biochemical verification of almost all abstinent subjects. Timeliness in care provision could further improve the outcome.