Treatment decision for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the role of the heart team : Position statement paper of the Dutch Working Group of Transcatheter Heart Interventions

Higher Edmonton Frail Scale prior to transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation is related to longer hospital stay and mortality

BACKGROUND

International guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease recommend frailty assessment prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), however there is no consensus how to assess frailty. We investigated whether frailty status assessed with the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS, range 0-17 points) relates to length of stay (LOS), short- and long-term mortality and adverse outcomes after TAVI.

METHODS

In this study we included 357 patients between April 2016 till December 2018. EFS was assessed at baseline. Patients were classified into low (0-3), intermediate (4-7) or high frailty status (8-17). LOS was defined as the number of days between admission and discharge. Mortality data were obtained up to four years after TAVI. Adverse events were defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and collected <30 days after TAVI.

RESULTS

Patients with higher frailty status had longer median LOS (days (IQR): low 5 (3), intermediate 6 (4) and high 7 (5), p < 0.001) and higher mortality: low vs intermediate vs high at 30 days 0.5%, 2.2%, 7.0% (p = 0.050), 1 year 3.7%, 10.0%, 15.2% (p = 0.052), 2 years 9.2%, 17.8%, 31.7% (p = 0.003), 3 years 17.2%, 24.0, 47.0% (p = 0.001) and 4 years 19.6%, 30.8%, 55.6% (p < 0.001). Frail patients received more often a pacemaker (2.6%, 6.6%, 13.5%, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, the EFS is a useful tool to screen for frailty in TAVI patients. This tool may possibly be expanded to determine benefit versus harm-risk in these patients and whether specific pre-procedurally interventions are needed in order to reduce mortality.

Clinical Impact of Heart Team Decisions for Patients With Complex Valvular Heart Disease: A Large, Single-Center Experience

Background

A multidisciplinary approach might be pivotal for the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD), but clinical outcome data are lacking.

Methods and Results

At our institution, since 2014, internal guidelines recommended heart team consultations for patients with VHD. The clinical/echocardiographic characteristics, treatment recommendations, performed treatment, and early clinical outcomes of consecutive, hospitalized patients with VHD undergoing heart team evaluation were collected. Surgical risk was prospectively assessed by the EuroSCORE II and STS‐PROM. The primary end point of the study was early mortality. A total of 1004 patients with VHD with high clinical complexity (mean age, 75 years; mean EuroSCORE II, 9.4%; mean STS‐PROM, 5.6%; 48% ischemic heart disease; 29% chronic kidney disease, 9% oncologic/hematologic diseases) were enrolled. The heart team recommended an interventional treatment for 807 (80%) patients and conservative management for 197 (20%) patients. Management crossovers occurred in only 5% of patients. The recommended intervention was cardiac surgery for 230 (23%) patients, percutaneous treatment in 516 (51%) patients, and hybrid treatment in 61 (6%) patients. Early mortality occurred in 24 patients (2.4%) and was independently predicted by aortic stenosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and conservative management recommendation. In patients referred to treatment, observed early mortality (1.7%) was significantly lower (P<0.001) than expected on the bases of both the STS‐PROM (5.2%) and EuroSCORE II (9.7%).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of its single‐center and observational design, the present study suggests that heart team–based management of patients with complex VHD is feasible and allows referral to a wide spectrum of interventions with promising early clinical results.

Decision making in treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a survey study in Dutch heart centres

Aim

To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL].

Methods

A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment.

Results

All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10).

Conclusions

Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01676-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Changes in demographics, treatment and outcomes in a consecutive cohort who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between 2005 and 2020

Introduction

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020.

Methods

A single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3).

Results

Over time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively.

Conclusion

Over our 15 years’ experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles’ heel of TAVI.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01662-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Heart Team for Optimal Management of Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis-Long-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life from Tertiary Cardiovascular Care Center

Background: This retrospective study was proposed to investigate outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) after implementation of various treatment strategies following dedicated Heart Team (HT) decisions. Methods: Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a median follow-up of 866 days of patients with severe AS qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or OMT and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal disabling strokes and non-fatal rehospitalizations for AS were considered, while other clinical outcomes were determined as secondary endpoints. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held, and a total of 482 participants with severe AS and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, TAVR and SAVR for 79, 318 and 85, respectively) were included in the final analysis. SAVR and TAVR were found to be superior to OMT for primary and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05). Comparing interventional strategies only, TAVR was associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury, new onset of atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, while the superiority of SAVR for major vascular complications and need for permanent pacemaker implantation was observed (p < 0.05). The quality of life assessed at the end of follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR than in OMT-group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We demonstrated that after careful implementation of HT decisions interventional strategies compared to OMT only provide superior outcomes and quality of life for patients with AS.

Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement over three decades

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to analyze temporal changes in baseline and procedural characteristics and long-term survival of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement over a 30-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement between 1987 and 2016 in the Erasmus Medical Center (Rotterdam, The Netherlands) was conducted. Patient baseline and procedural characteristics were analyzed in periods according to the date of surgical aortic valve replacement (period A: 1987-1996; B: 1997-2006; C: 2007-2016). Survival status was determined using the Dutch National Death Registry. Relative survival was obtained by comparing the survival after surgical aortic valve replacement with the survival of the age-, sex-, and year-matched general population.

RESULTS

Between 1987 and 2016, 4404 patients underwent SAVR. From period A to C, the mean age increased from 63.9 ± 11.2 years to 66.2 ± 12.3 years (P < .001), and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, previous myocardial infarction, and previous stroke at baseline increased (P values for trend for all < .001). The prevalence of concomitant procedures increased from 42.4% in period A to 48.3% in period C (P = .004). Bioprosthesis use increased significantly (18.8% in period A vs 67.1% in period C, P < .001). Mean survival after surgical aortic valve replacement was 13.8 years. Relative survival at 20 years in the overall cohort was 60.4% (95% confidence interval, 55.9-65.2) and 73.8% (95% confidence interval, 67.1-81.1) in patients undergoing isolated primary surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient complexity has been continuously increasing over the last 30 years, yet long-term survival after surgical aortic valve replacement remains high compared with the age-, sex-, and year-matched general population.

The history of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The role and contribution of an early believer and adopter, the Netherlands

This paper describes the history of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) from its preclinical phase during which visionary pioneers developed its concept and prototype valves against strong head wind to first application in clinical practice (2002) and the clinical and scientific role of an early believer and adopter, the Netherlands (2005).