Long-term effects of cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery - results from the randomised CopenHeartVR trial

Aims. The CopenHeart_VR trial found positive effects of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on physical capacity at 4 months. The long-term effects of CR following valve surgery remains unclear, especially regarding readmission and mortality. Using data from he CopenHeart_VR Trial we investigated long-term effects on physical capacity, mental and physical health and effect on mortality and readmission rates as prespecified in the original protocol. Methods. A total of 147 participants were included after heart valve surgery and randomly allocated 1:1 to 12-weeks exercise-based CR including a psycho-educational programme (intervention group) or control. Physical capacity was assessed as peak oxygen uptake (VO₂ peak) measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing, mental and physical health by Short Form-36 questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and HeartQol. Mortality and readmission were obtained from hospital records and registers. Groups were compared using mixed regression model analysis and log rank test. Results. No differences in VO₂ peak at 12 months or in self-assessed mental and physical health at 24 months (68% vs 75%, p = .120) was found. However, our data demonstrated reduction in readmissions in the intervention group at intermediate time points; after 3, 6 (43% vs 59%, p = .03), and 12 (53% vs 67%, p = .04) months, respectively, but no significant effect at 24 months. Conclusions. Exercise-based CR after heart valve surgery reduces combined readmissions and mortality up to 12 months despite lack of improvement in exercise capacity, physical and mental health long-term. Exercise-based CR can ensure short-term benefits in terms of physical capacity, and lower readmission within a year, but more research is needed to sustain these effects over a longer time period. These considerations should be included in the management of patients after heart valve surgery.

Effect of a dedicated mitral heart team compared to a general heart team on survival: a retrospective, comparative, non-randomized interventional cohort study based on prospectively registered data

 

OBJECTIVES

Although in both the US and European guidelines the 'heart team approach' is a class I recommendation, supporting evidence is still lacking. Therefore, we sought to provide comparative survival data of patients with mitral valve disease referred to the general and the dedicated heart team.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort, patients evaluated for mitral valve disease by a general heart team (2009-2014) and a dedicated mitral valve heart team (2014-2018) were included. Decision-making was recorded prospectively in heart team electronic forms. The end point was overall survival from decision of the heart team.

RESULTS

In total, 1145 patients were included of whom 641 (56%) were discussed by dedicated heart team and 504 (44%) by general heart team. At 5 years, survival probability was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.79] for the dedicated heart team group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.74, P = 0.040) for the general heart team. Relative risk of mortality adjusted for EuroSCORE II, treatment groups (surgical, transcatheter and non-intervention), mitral valve pathology (degenerative, functional, rheumatic and others) and 13 other baseline characteristics for patients in the dedicated heart team was 29% lower [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; P = 0.019] than for the general heart team. The adjusted relative risk of mortality was 61% lower for patients following the advice of the heart team (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62; P < 0.001) and 43% lower for patients following the advice of the general heart team (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.87; P = 0.010) compared to those who did not follow the advice of the heart team.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort, patients treated for mitral valve disease based on a dedicated heart team decision have significantly higher survival independent of the allocated treatment, mitral valve pathology and baseline characteristics.

Current Anesthetic Care of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Europe: Results of an Online Survey

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis not eligible for surgical valve replacement due to a high periprocedural risk or comorbidities. However, there are several areas of debate concerning the pre-, intra- and post-procedural management. The standards and management for these topics may vary widely among different institutions and countries in Europe.

DESIGN

Structured web-based, anonymized, voluntary survey.

SETTING

Distribution of the survey via email among members of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology working in European centers performing TAVR between September and December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey consisted of 25 questions, including inquiries regarding number of TAVR procedures, technical aspects of TAVR, medical specialities present, preoperative evaluation of TAVR candidates, anesthesia regimen, as well as postoperative management. Seventy members participated in the survey. Reporting members mostly performed 151-to-300 TAVR procedures per year. In 90% of the responses, a cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, and perfusionist always were available. Sixty-six percent of the members had a national curriculum for cardiothoracic anesthesia. Among 60% of responders, the decision for TAVR was made preoperatively by an interdisciplinary heart team with a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, yet in 5 countries an anesthesiologist was not part of the decision-making. General anesthesia was employed in 40% of the responses, monitored anesthesia care in 44%, local anesthesia in 23%, and in 49% all techniques were offered to the patients. In cases of general anesthesia, endotracheal intubation almost always was performed (91%). It was stated that norepinephrine was the vasopressor of choice (63% of centers). Transesophageal echocardiography guiding, whether performed by an anesthesiologist or cardiologist, was used only ≤30%. Postprocedurally, patients were transferred to an intensive care unit by 51.43% of the respondents with a reported nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:2 or 1:3, to a post-anesthesia care unit by 27.14%, to a postoperative recovery room by 11.43%, and to a peripheral ward by 10%.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that requirements and quality indicators (eg, periprocedural anesthetic management, involvement of the anesthesiologist in the heart team, etc) for TAVR procedures as published within the European guideline are largely, yet still not fully implemented in daily routine. In addition, anesthetic TAVR management also is performed heterogeneously throughout Europe.

EDUCATIONAL SERIES ON THE SPECIALIST VALVE CLINIC: The central role of the cardiac imager in heart valve disease

In this review, we discuss the central role of the imager in the heart team in the successful application of current guidelines for heart valve diseases to daily practice, and for improving patient care through new approaches, new techniques and new strategies for dealing with increasingly complex cases. This is an opportunity to emphasize the importance of having good imagers and the value of continuous learning in a modern heart team. It is essential to employ technological improvements and to appropriately adapt guidelines to the patients we see day to day.

Early follow-up after open heart valve surgery reduces healthcare costs: a propensity matched study

Objectives

The objective was to assess differences in healthcare costs within 180 days after discharge from open heart valve surgery in an intervention group receiving early, individualised and intensified follow-up compared with a historical control group.

Methods

A cost-minimisation analysis comparing costs from a consecutive prospective cohort compared with a propensity matched cohort. Costs related to the intervention, hospital (outpatient visits and readmissions) and general practitioners (all contacts) were included. Data were obtained from electronic patient records and registry data. A logistic propensity model was used to identify the historical control group. Main results are presented as mean differences and 95% CIs based on bootstrapping.

Results

After matching, the analysis included 300 patients from the intervention group and 580 controls. The mean intervention cost was €171 (SD 79) per patient. After 180 days, the mean healthcare costs were €1284 (SD 2567) for the intervention group and €2077 (SD 4773) for the controls. The cost of the intervention group was €793 (p<0.001) less per patient. The cost differences were explained mainly by fewer readmissions, fewer overall emergency visits and fewer contacts to the general practitioner during out-of-hours in the intervention group.

Conclusions

The intervention consisting of early, individualised and intensified follow-up after open heart valve surgery significantly reduced the healthcare costs within 180 days after discharge.

How to treat severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration of aortic surgical bioprosthesis: transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation or redo valve surgery?

The optimal management of aortic surgical bioprosthesis presenting with severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration is currently a matter of debate. Over the past 20 years, the number of implanted bioprostheses worldwide has been rapidly increasing at the expense of mechanical prostheses. A large proportion of patients, however, will require intervention for bioprosthesis structural valve deterioration. Current options for older patients who often have severe comorbidities include either transcatheter valve-in-valve (TVIV) implantation or redo valve surgery. The emergence of TVIV implantation, which is perceived to be less invasive than redo valve surgery, offers an effective alternative to surgery for these patients with proven safety and efficacy in high-risk patient groups including elderly and frail patients. A potential caveat to this strategy is that results of long-term follow-up after TVIV implantation are limited. Redo surgery is sometimes preferable, especially for young patients with a smaller-sized aortic bioprosthesis. With the emergence of TVIV implantation and the long experience of redo valve surgery, we currently have 2 complementary treatment modalities, allowing a tailor-made and patient-orientated intervention. In the heart team, the decision-making should be based on several factors including type of bioprosthesis failure, age, comorbidities, operative risk, anatomical factors, anticipated risks and benefits of each alternative, patient's choice and local experience. The aim of this review is to provide a framework for individualized optimal treatment strategies in patients with failed aortic surgical bioprosthesis.