TAVR in Nonagenarians: Pushing the Boundaries

Understanding experiences of undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: one-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for frail, older adults with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Although research about long-term clinical outcomes is emerging, there is limited evidence from the perspectives of patients and family caregivers on their perceived benefits and challenges after TAVI.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe older adults and family caregivers' perspectives on undergoing TAVI at one year post-procedure.

METHODS

Qualitative description was the method of inquiry. A purposive sample of 31 patients and 15 family caregivers was recruited from a TAVI programme in western Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants one year after TAVI. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

All participants were satisfied with the decision to undergo TAVI. There were three central themes. First, recovery was experienced in the context of aging and comorbidities, which was shaped by patients' limited options for care and post-procedure symptom burden. Second, reconciling expectations with reality meant that, for some patients, symptom burden remained prevalent and was also influenced by others' expectations. Third, recommendations for recovery related to having information needs met, keeping informed of evolving care processes, and addressing individualised needs for support.

CONCLUSIONS

The perspectives of participants provide a valuable contribution to the literature about undergoing TAVI. Clinicians need to be attentive to patients' expectations of benefit and temper these with consideration of the individual's broader health situation to provide treatment decision support. Patients and family caregivers also need adequate teaching and support to facilitate safe transition home given the shift towards early discharge after TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarians: selectively feasible or extravagantly futile?

A growing number of nonagenarians is recorded as life expectancy increases. Unfortunately, this extreme-aged group is plagued by increased prevalence of aortic stenosis amidst a higher occurrence of comorbidities that pose dilemmas to cardiologists and cardiac surgeons when having to choose a conservative or interventional treatment modality, and a surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) approach. TAVI is an expensive procedure, which also confers a higher mortality and morbidity risk in nonagenarians, compared to younger patients. Considering the physiologic rather the chronologic age alone, and adopting a shared-decision making approach (participatory medicine), it may be more realistic to determine a patient's candidacy for this non-surgical therapeutic modality. Thus, it comes down to the patient selection process by having the heart team review each nonagenarian case individually and getting the patient and the family involved, always aiming to prolong and improve patient's quality of life (QoL), but also taking into consideration patient preferences and values, sharing and respecting goals, realistic expectations, and end-of-life views and ideas. One should keep in mind that there is always the possibility that TAVI may be clinically futile for patients who have a multitude of comorbidities and extreme frailty, for whom a transition to palliative care might be prudent. Selecting nonagenarian patients with low comorbidity index and with no extreme frailty, adopting a minimalistic approach and paying attention to vascular access hemostasis may provide the elements that may lead to a successful, desirable and hopefully cost-effective outcome.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation economics: a grisly reality

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), an established treatment for inoperable and high-risk operable symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis with growing numbers of procedures and expanding indications, is an expensive therapy. Cost-effectiveness analyses rely on the value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect. Several analyses have demonstrated that TAVI is cost-effective with an acceptable ICER for the inoperable patient alone and only via the iliofemoral route, while TAVI is more costly and is either less or equally effective as surgery in high-risk operable patients. When use of TAVI is extended to include a larger number of patients suitable for surgery, the overall results become less favorable. Acceptable ICERs should practically equate to the value of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in each country; however, the cost of the TAVI kit alone already exceeds the GDP per capita of all moderate- and low-income countries. An overview of the current cost-efficacy issues of TAVI is presented and this grisly reality is discussed, which may hopefully be improved in the future.