Transcatheter aortic valve implantation during COVID-19 pandemic: An optimized model to relieve healthcare system overload

A streamlined pathway for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the BENCHMARK study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is significant potential to streamline the clinical pathway for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing BENCHMARK best practices on the efficiency and safety of TAVI in 28 sites in 7 European countries.

METHODS

This was a study of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI with balloon-expandable valves before and after implementation of BENCHMARK best practices. Principal objectives were to reduce hospital length of stay (LoS) and duration of intensive care stay. Secondary objective was to document patient safety.

RESULTS

Between January 2020 and March 2023, 897 patients were documented prior to and 1491 patients after the implementation of BENCHMARK practices. Patient characteristics were consistent with a known older TAVI population and only minor differences. Mean LoS was reduced from 7.7 ± 7.0 to 5.8 ± 5.6 days (median 6 vs. 4 days; P < .001). Duration of intensive care was reduced from 1.8 to 1.3 days (median 1.1 vs. 0.9 days; P < .001). Adoption of peri-procedure best practices led to increased use of local anaesthesia (96.1% vs. 84.3%; P < .001) and decreased procedure (median 47 vs. 60 min; P < .001) and intervention times (85 vs. 95 min; P < .001). Thirty-day patient safety did not appear to be compromised with no differences in all-cause mortality (0.6% in both groups combined), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (1.4%), life-threatening bleeding (1.3%), stage 2/3 acute kidney injury (0.7%), and valve-related readmission (1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Broad implementation of BENCHMARK practices contributes to improving efficiency of TAVI pathway reducing LoS and costs without compromising patient safety.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on aortic valve replacement and outcomes in France

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdowns limited access to medical care. The impact on surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been poorly described.

AIM

We sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number and modalities of AVR, patient demographics and in-hospital outcomes at the nationwide level.

METHODS

Using the French nationwide administrative hospital discharge database, we compared projected numbers and proportions of AVR and hospital outcomes, obtained using linear regressions derived from 2015-2019 trends, with those observed in 2020.

RESULTS

In 2020, 21,382 AVRs were performed (13,051 TAVRs, 5706 isolated SAVRs and 2625 SAVRs combined with other cardiac surgery). Compared with the 2020 projected number of AVRs (24,586, 95% confidence interval [CI] 23,525-25,646), TAVRs (14,866, 95% CI 14,164-15,568), isolated SAVRs (6652, 95% CI 6203-7100) and SAVRs combined with other cardiac surgery (3069, 95% CI 2822-3315), there were reductions of 13.0%, 12.2%, 14.2% and 14.5%, respectively. These trends were similar regardless of sex or age. In 2020, the mean age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and hospital admission duration continued to decline, and the proportion of females remained constant, following 2015-2019 trends. Overall, 2020 in-hospital mortality was higher than projected (2.0% observed vs. 1.7% projected; 95% CI 1.5-1.9%), with no increased pacemaker implantation, but more acute kidney injury and cerebrovascular accidents in some surgical subsets.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer TAVR and SAVR procedures were performed, with increased in-hospital mortality and periprocedural complications. Extended follow-up will be important to establish the long-term effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient management and outcomes.

Understanding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy: Evidence from the community-driven knowledge site Quora

Objective

The present study aims to examine the threshold of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy over time and public discourse around COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy.

Methods

We collected 3,952 questions and 66,820 answers regarding COVID-19 vaccination posted on the social question-and-answer website Quora between June 2020 and June 2021 and employed Word2Vec and Sentiment Analysis to analyze the data. To examine changes in the perceptions and hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccine, we segmented the data into 25 bi-weekly sections.

Results

As positive sentiment about vaccination increased, the number of new vaccinations in the United States also increased until it reached a ceiling point. The vaccine hesitancy phase was identified by the decrease in positive sentiment from its highest peak. Words that occurred only when the positive answer rate peaked (e.g., safe, plan, best, able, help) helped explain factors associated with positive perceptions toward vaccines, and the words that occurred only when the negative answer rate peaked (e.g., early, variant, scientists, mutations, effectiveness) suggested factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. We also identified a period of vaccine resistance, where people who decided not to be vaccinated were unlikely to be vaccinated without further enforcement or incentive.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that vaccine hesitancy occurred because concerns about vaccine safety were high due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence and public trust in healthcare authorities has been seriously undermined. Considering that vaccine-related conspiracy theories and fake news prevailed in the absence of reliable information sources, restoring public trust in healthcare leaders will be critical for future vaccination efforts.