Specialist valve clinic: why, who and how?

Contemporary European practice in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from the 2022 European TAVI Pathway Registry

Background

A steep rise in the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis occurred. Minimalist TAVI procedures and streamlined patient pathways within experienced Heart Valve Centres are designed to overcome the challenges of ever-increasing procedural volume.

Aims

The 2022 European TAVI Pathway Survey aims to describe contemporary TAVI practice across Europe.

Materials and methods

Between October and December 2022, TAVI operators from 32 European countries were invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their current practice.

Results

Responses were available from 147 TAVI centres in 26 countries. In 2021, the participating centres performed a total number of 27,223 TAVI procedures, with a mean of 185 TAVI cases per centre (median 138; IQR 77-194). Treatment strategies are usually (87%) discussed at a dedicated Heart Team meeting. Transfemoral TAVI is performed with local anaesthesia only (33%), with associated conscious sedation (60%), or under general anaesthesia (7%). Primary vascular access is percutaneous transfemoral (99%) with secondary radial access (52%). After uncomplicated TAVI, patients are transferred to a high-, medium-, or low-care unit in 28%, 52%, and 20% of cases, respectively. Time to discharge is day 1 (12%), day 2 (31%), day 3 (29%), or day 4 or more (28%).

Conclusion

Reported adoption of minimalist TAVI techniques is common among European TAVI centres, but rates of next-day discharge remain low. This survey highlights the significant progress made in refining TAVI treatment and pathways in recent years and identifies possible areas for further improvement.

The advantages, pitfalls and limitations of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with valvular heart disease

Heart failure is an inevitable end-stage consequence of significant valvular heart disease (VHD) that is left untreated and increasingly encountered in an ageing society. Recent advances in transcatheter procedures and improved outcomes after valve surgery mean that intervention can (and should) be considered in all patients - even the elderly and those with multiple comorbidities - at earlier stages of the natural history of primary VHD, before the onset of irreversible left ventricular dysfunction (and frequently before the onset of symptoms). All patients with known VHD should be monitored carefully in the setting of a heart valve clinic and those who meet guideline criteria for surgical or transcatheter intervention referred for intervention without delay. High quality evidence for the use of medical therapy in VHD is limited and achieving target doses in an elderly and comorbid population frequently challenging. Furthermore, determining whether the valve or ventricle is the principal disease driver is crucial (although the distinction is not always binary, and often unclear). Guideline-directed medical therapy remains the mainstay of treatment for secondary mitral regurgitation - although up to 50% of patients may fail to respond and should be considered for cardiac resynchronization, transcatheter or surgical valve intervention. Early and definitive management strategies are essential and should be overseen by a specialist Heart Team that includes a Heart Failure specialist. In this article, we provide an evidence-based summary of approaches to the medical treatment of VHD and clinical guidance for the best management of patients in situations where high quality evidence is lacking.

Specialist valve clinic in a cardiac centre: 10-year experience

Aims

Guidelines recommend specialist valve clinics as best practice for the assessment and conservative management of patients with heart valve disease. However, there is little guidance on how to set up and organise a clinic. The aim of this study is to describe a clinic run by a multidisciplinary team consisting of cardiologists, physiologist/scientists and a nurse.

Methods

The clinical and organisational aims of the clinic, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and links with other services are described. The methods of training non-clinical staff are detailed. Data were prospectively entered onto a database and the study consisted of an analysis of the clinical characteristics and outcomes of all patients seen between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018.

Results

There were 2126 new patients and 9522 visits in the 10-year period. The mean age was 64.8 and 55% were male. Of the visits, 3587 (38%) were to the cardiologists, 4092 (43%) to the physiologist/scientists and 1843 (19%) to the nurse. The outcomes from the cardiologist clinics were cardiology follow-up in 460 (30%), referral for surgery in 354 (23%), referral to the physiologist/scientist clinic in 412 (27%) or to the nurse clinic in 65 (4.3%) and discharge in 230 (15%). The cardiologist needed to see 6% from the nurse clinic and 10% from the physiologist/scientist clinic, while advice alone was sufficient in 10% and 9%.

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary specialist valve clinic is feasible and sustainable in the long term.