Reducing Length of Hospital Stay Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective treatment for severe aortic stenosis across the spectrum of surgical risk cohorts. Subsequently, the dramatic increase in procedural volume worldwide has placed significant financial and logistical pressures on healthcare institutions, particularly regarding hospital length of stay (LOS), which can adversely affect patient flow. In this review article, we discuss different peri-procedural strategies developed to reduce LOS and facilitate early discharge after TAVI.

Safety and Patient Experience With Early Mobilization After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Immobilization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the standard treatment for preventing access-related complications. However, the length of bed rest varies, and possible complications and patient experience remain unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

In this pilot study, our aim was to investigate safety and efficacy after bed rest after TAVR.

METHODS

This single-center randomized trial included 298 patients. Patients were randomized to standard 6 hours (n = 149) or 3 hours (n = 149) of bed rest after TAVR. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of access-related bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥ 2), hematoma (>5 cm), pseudoaneurysm, and vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary efficacy endpoint was patient-reported back pain, rated ≥6 on a numeric rating scale 24 hours post procedure. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary safety endpoint, patient-reported pain, urination problems, and comfort.

RESULTS

The primary safety endpoint occurred in 14 (9.4%) and 12 (8.1%) patients in the 6-hour and 3-hour immobilization groups, respectively (risk ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.79]; P = .68). There were no significant differences in individual bleeding or vascular complication endpoints. Patients with 3 hours of bed rest reported less back pain (P < .001), fewer urination problems (P < .001), and better comfort (P < .001) than patients with 6 hours of bed rest.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobilization as early as 3 hours after TAVR was shown to be safe, not resulting in a higher rate of bleeding or vascular complications as compared with 6 hours of bed rest. However, there was a difference in patient-reported back pain, urination problems, and comfort, favoring early mobilization.

Same-day discharge after percutaneous closure of persistent foramen ovale using intracardiac echocardiography and the Gore Septal Occluder

Aim

Periprocedural and postinterventional care of patients undergoing closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) varies significantly across care providers. Same-day discharge (SDD) after transcatheter interventions is an evolving concept. This study aimed to assess the same-day discharge rate and incidence of complications in patients undergoing PFO closure with intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) using the Gore®Cardioform Septal Occluder (GSO) device. The secondary aim was to analyse the efficacy of femoral vein closure with Perclose ProGlide.

Methods

Patients who underwent PFO closure with the GSO device at a university hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, were retrospectively included between March 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, all with cryptogenic stroke as the indication for the procedure. All patients underwent PFO closure with conscious sedation and local anaesthesia. The indication for all patients was a cryptogenic stroke. Periprocedural imaging was performed using ICE and fluoroscopy in all patients. Patient characteristics and periprocedural data were collected from patient charts. Patients were kept on bed rest for 4-6 h post-intervention. Transthoracic echocardiography and clinical examination, including groin status, were performed before discharge. No clinical routine follow-up was performed the day following the intervention. Clinical follow-up was done by phone call two weeks after the procedure, and echocardiographic follow-up was done after 12 months. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression models.

Results

In total, 262 patients were included, of which 246 (94%) had SDD. 166 patients (63%) received the ProGlide™ system for femoral vein access closure. Post-procedural arrhythmias occurred in 17 (6%) patients, and vascular complications in 9 patients (3%). The overall closure rate at follow-up was 98.5%. 25 out of 264 patients (9.5%) had to be readmitted within the first eight weeks after PFO closure, 16 due to atrial fibrillation warranting electric cardioversion, one due to an arteriovenous fistula that was operated, four due to chest pain/pain at the access site, and four patients developed fever. There was no difference in SDD among patients who received ProGlide™ vs. patients who did not receive ProGlide™.

Conclusion

SDD appears safe after transcatheter PFO closure with the GSO device with high procedural success rates. Low rates of complications and readmissions make the intervention suitable for this patient-friendly and cost-effective concept.

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.

The PIGTAIL paradigm for a fast and safe transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement is the preferred primary access route whenever possible. Despite advancements in expertise and delivery system profiles, complications associated with the primary femoral access still significantly affect procedural morbidity and outcomes. The current standard for accurate main access planning involves proper preprocedural evaluation guided by computed tomography. Several baseline clinical and anatomical features serve as predictors for the risk of vascular injury occurring during or after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In this paper, we aimed at reviewing the most up-to-date knowledge of the topic for a safe transfemoral access approach according to a paradigm we have called "PIGTAIL."

Impact of New-Onset Right Bundle-Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

BACKGROUND

A delayed and recurrent complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) is a life-threatening complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Post-TAVR evaluation may be important in predicting delayed and recurrent CAVB requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The impact of new-onset right bundle-branch block (RBBB) after TAVR on PPI remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In total, 407 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR were included in this analysis. Intraprocedural CAVB was defined as CAVB that occurred during TAVR. A 12-lead ECG was evaluated at baseline, immediately after TAVR, on postoperative days 1 and 5, and according to the need to identify new-onset bundle-branch block (BBB) and CAVB after TAVR. Forty patients (9.8%) required PPI, 17 patients (4.2%) had persistent intraprocedural CAVB, and 23 (5.7%) had delayed or recurrent CAVB after TAVR. The rates of no new-onset BBB, new-onset left BBB, and new-onset RBBB were 65.1%, 26.8%, and 4.7%, respectively. Compared with patients without new-onset BBB and those with new-onset left BBB, the rate of PPI was higher in patients with new-onset RBBB (3.4% versus 5.6% versus 44.4%, P<0.0001). On post-TAVR evaluation in patients without persistent intraprocedural CAVB, the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that new-onset RBBB was a statistically significant predictor of PPI compared with no new-onset BBB (odds ratio [OR], 18.0 [95% CI, 5.94-54.4]) in addition to the use of a self-expanding valve (OR, 2.97 [95% CI, 1.09-8.10]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with new-onset RBBB after TAVR are at high risk for PPI.

Aortic Stenosis Management in Patients With Acute Hip Fracture

The treatment of severe aortic stenosis (SAS) has evolved rapidly with the advent of minimally invasive structural heart interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has allowed patients to undergo definitive SAS treatment achieving faster recovery rates compared to valve surgery. Not infrequently, patients are admitted/diagnosed with SAS after a fall associated with a hip fracture (HFx). While urgent orthopedic surgery is key to reduce disability and mortality, untreated SAS increases the perioperative risk and precludes physical recovery. There is no consensus on what the best strategy is either hip correction under hemodynamic monitoring followed by valve replacement or preoperative balloon aortic valvuloplasty to allow HFx surgery followed by valve replacement. However, preoperative minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement may represent an attractive strategy for selected patients. We provide a management pathway that emphasizes an early multidisciplinary approach to optimize time for hip surgery to improve orthopedic and cardiovascular outcomes in patients presenting with HFx-SAS.

Pacemaker post transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multifactorial risk?

Pacemaker post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement is related to multifactorial risk. Nwaedozie et al brought to the body of evidence electrocardiogram and clinical findings. However, procedural characteristics have at least as much impact on the final need for a permanent pacemaker and potentially on the pacing rate. In this regard, long-term follow-up and understanding of the impact of long-term stimulation is of utmost importance.

Safety and feasibility of early discharge after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with ACURATE Neo-the POLESTAR trial

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) serves a growing range of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). TAVI has evolved to a streamlined procedure minimizing length of hospital stay.

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early discharge (ED) strategy after TAVI.

METHODS

We performed an international, multi-center, prospective observational single-arm study in AS patients undergoing TAVI with the ACURATE valve platform. Eligibility for ED was assessed prior to TAVI and based on prespecified selection criteria. Discharge ≤ 48 h was defined as ED. Primary Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3-defined 30-day safety and efficacy composite endpoints were landmarked at 48 h and compared between ED and non-ED groups.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included. The median age was 82 [25th-75th percentile, 78-85] years and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 2.2% [25th-75th percentile, 1.6-3.3]. ED and non-ED were achieved in 173 (69%) and 79 (31%) patients respectively. Monitoring for conduction disturbances was the principal reason for non-ED (33%). Overall, at 30 days, all-cause mortality was 1%, new permanent pacemaker rate was 4%, and valve- or procedure-related rehospitalization was 4%. There was no difference in the primary safety and efficacy endpoint between the ED and non-ED cohorts (OR 0.84 [25th-75th percentile, 0.31-2.26], p = 0.73, and OR 0.97 [25th-75th percentile, 0.46-2.06], p = 0.94). The need for rehospitalization was similarly low for ED and non-ED groups.

CONCLUSION

Early discharge after TAVI with the ACURATE valve is safe and feasible in selected patients. Rhythm monitoring and extended clinical observation protracted hospital stay.

Reducing length of stay after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the FAST-TAVI II trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The length of stay (LOS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains extremely variable whereas early discharge has been shown to be feasible and safe. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intervention aimed at reducing LOS after transfemoral TAVI.

METHODS

FAST-TAVI II is a prospective, multicentre, cluster, randomized, controlled study including patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, who had transfemoral TAVI. The intervention consisted in a dedicated training programme to implement 10 quality of care measures to reduce LOS with an implementation phase of eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients discharged early within 3 days. Secondary endpoints included: LOS, 30-day mortality and 30-day incidence of readmission for cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

During the study period, 969 patients were enrolled in the intervention group and 860 patients in the control group. Mean age was 81.9 ± 6.6 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 4.4 ± 4.5%. Early discharge was achieved in 563 (58.1%) patients in the intervention group vs. 364 (42.3%) patients in the control group (P < .0001). Median LOS was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group [3 (IQR: 3) vs. 4 days (IQR: 3), P < .0001]. Thirty-day mortality was low and similar in the two groups (0.5% vs. 0.9%, P = .30), as were 30-day readmissions (4.6% vs. 2.8%, P = .28).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was simple and fast to implement, and was effective and safe to reduce LOS and increase the proportion of patients discharged early after TAVI (NCT04503655).

Intravascular Lithotripsy-Assisted Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Iliofemoral Calcifications: Expanding Transfemoral Indications

(1) Background: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for most patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Intravascular lithotripsy may facilitate transfemoral TAVI (IVL-TAVI) even in patients with severely calcified iliofemoral disease. We assessed technical aspects and clinical outcomes of this novel approach compared to alternative transaxillary access (TAX-TAVI). (2) Methods: IVL-TAVI was performed for severe iliofemoral calcifications precluding standard transfemoral access in 30 patients from 2019 to 2022 at a single academic heart center. IVL was performed as part of the TAVI procedure in all cases. Results were compared to a control group of 44 TAX-TAVI procedures performed for the same indication from 2016 to 2021. The safety outcome was a composite of all-cause death, stroke, access-related bleeding ≥ type 2 within 24 h and major vascular access site complications at 30 days. The efficacy outcome was defined as a technical success according to VARC-3. (3) Results: Median age was 78.2 [74.3, 82.6] years, 45.9% were female and mean STS-PROM was 3.6% [2.3, 6.0]. Iliofemoral calcifications were more severe in the IVL-TAVI vs. TAX-TAVI groups (lesion length: 63.0 mm [48.6, 80.3] vs. 48.5 mm [33.1, 68.8]; p = 0.043, severe calcification at target lesion: 90.0% vs. 68.2%; p = 0.047, and median arc calcification 360.0° [297.5, 360.0] vs. 360.0° [180.0, 360.0]; p = 0.033). Technical success was achieved in 93.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.187) in IVL- and TAX-TAVI and the safety outcome occurred in 10.0% vs. 31.8% in IVL- and TAX-TAVI (p = 0.047), respectively. (4) Conclusions: IVL-assisted transfemoral TAVI was feasible and safe with favorable outcomes compared to TAX-TAVI. IVL may further expand the number of patients eligible for transfemoral TAVI and may help overcome limitations of an alternative access.

Financial Burden of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Given the increasing population eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), resource utilization has become an important focus in this setting. We aimed to estimate the change in the financial burden of TAVI therapy over 2 different periods. A probabilistic Markov model was developed to estimate the cost consequences of increased center experience and the introduction of newer-generation TAVI devices compared with an earlier TAVI period in a cohort of 6,000 patients. The transition probabilities and hospitalization costs were retrieved from the OBSERVANT (Observational Study of Effectiveness of AVR-TAVI procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) and OBSERVANT II (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI with new generation deVices for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment) studies, including 1,898 patients treated with old-generation devices and 1,417 patients treated with new-generation devices. The propensity score matching resulted in 853 pairs, with well-balanced baseline risk factors. The mean EuroSCORE II (6.6% vs 6.8%, p = 0.76) and the mean age (82.0 vs 82.1 y, p = 0.62) of the early TAVI period and new TAVI period were comparable. The new TAVI period was associated with a significant reduction in rehospitalizations (-30.5% reintervention, -25.2% rehospitalization for major events, and -30.8% rehospitalization for minor events) and a 20% reduction in 1-year mortality. These reductions resulted in significant cost savings over a 1-year period (-€4.1 million in terms of direct costs and -€19.7 million considering the additional cost of the devices). The main cost reduction was estimated for rehospitalization, accounting for 79% of the overall cost reduction (not considering the costs of the devices). In conclusion, the introduction of new-generation TAVI devices, along with increased center experience, led to significant cost savings at 1-year compared with an earlier TAVI period, mainly because of the reduction in rehospitalization costs.

Virtual reality-assisted distraction during transcatheter aortic valve implantation under local anaesthesia: A randomised study

BACKGROUND

A minimal approach, using local anaesthesia alone, has been advocated to promote faster transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures in intermediate-risk patients. Pre- and periprocedural anxiety and pain remain a concern. Virtual reality (VR) is a form of non-pharmacological distraction that can potentially modulate pain and anxiety. This randomised study explored whether VR reduces pain and anxiety during TAVR without sedation and compared the effects of VR with those of standard care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between June 2022 and March 2023, 207 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR). Of these, 117 (56.5%) patients were willing to participate in the study and met the educational background and mental status criteria for assessment. Fifty-nine patients underwent TF-TAVR with VR glasses (VR group). Fifty-eight patients underwent standard TF-TAVR without VR (control group; CG). Post-interventional anxiety scores (STAI-S) (31.5 ± 13.4 vs. 38.5 ± 19.2, p = 0.02) and the perceived duration of the procedure (60.1 ± 32.3 vs. 73.0 ± 32.4, p = 0.04) were lower in the VR than in the CG. Procedure time, pain, and anxiety scores (visual analogue scale) were similar between the groups. The complication rate was low and not associated with VR. Post-interventional delirium occurred in nine patients, and was similar between the groups (VR: 4 [6.8%] vs. CG: 5 [8.6%], p = 0.71). No periprocedural strokes were observed.

CONCLUSION

VR for TAVR is feasible and safe and expands the non-drug spectrum of therapy for anxiety and pain in patients undergoing TAVR with a minimalistic approach.

Improving access to transcatheter aortic valve implantation across Europe by restructuring cardiovascular services: An expert council consensus statement

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is recommended for a growing range of patients with severe aortic stenosis in the European Society of Cardiology and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) 2021 Guidelines update. However, guideline implementation programs are needed to ensure the application of clinical recommendations which will favorably influence disease outcomes. An Expert Council was convened to identify whether cardiology services across Europe are set up to address the growing needs of patients with severe aortic stenosis for increased access to TAVI by identifying the key challenges faced in growing TAVI programs and mapping associated solutions. Wide variation exists across Europe in terms of TAVI availability and capacity to deliver the increased demand for TAVI in different countries. The recommendations of this Expert Council focus on the short-to-medium-term aspects where the most immediate, actionable impact can be achieved. The focus on improving procedural efficiency and optimizing the patient pathway via clinical practice and patient management demonstrates how to mitigate the current major issues of shortfall in catheterization laboratory, workforce, and bed capacity. Procedural efficiencies may be achieved through steps including streamlined patient assessment, the benchmarking of standards for minimalist procedures, standardized approaches around patient monitoring and conduction issues, and the implementation of nurse specialists and dedicated TAVI coordinators to manage organization, logistics, and early mobilization. Increased collaboration with wider stakeholders within institutions will support successful TAVI uptake and improve patient and economic outcomes. Further, increased education, collaboration, and partnership between cardiology centers will facilitate sharing of expertise and best clinical practice.

Viability and Safety of Early Hospital Discharge after Minimalist TAVI in the Brazilian Unified Health System

Central Illustration : Viability and Safety of Early Hospital Discharge after Minimalist TAVI in the Brazilian Unified Health System Results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a minimalist approach. CKD: chronic kidney disease; PO: postoperative days; TAVI: transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Is the outcome of elective vs non-elective patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation different? Results of a single-centre, observational assessment of outcomes at a large university clinic

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can either be conducted as an elective (scheduled in advance) or a non-elective procedure performed during an unplanned hospital admission. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of elective and non-elective TAVI patients.

METHODS

This single-centre study included 512 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI between October 2018 and December 2020; 378 (73.8%) were admitted for elective TAVI, 134 (26.2%) underwent a non-elective procedure. Our TAVI programme entails an optimized fast-track concept aimed at minimizing the total length of stay to ≤ 5 days for elective patients which in the German healthcare system is currently defined as the minimal time period to safely perform TAVI. Clinical characteristics and survival rates at 30 days and 1 year were analysed.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent non-elective TAVI had a significantly higher comorbidity burden. Median duration from admission to discharge was 6 days (elective group 6 days versus non-elective group 15 days; p < 0.001), including a median postprocedural stay of 5 days (elective 4 days versus non-elective 7 days; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 1.1% for the elective group and 3.7% for non-elective patients (p = 0.030). At 1 year, all-cause mortality among elective TAVI patients was disproportionately lower than in non-elective patients (5.0% versus 18.7%, p < 0.001). In the elective group, 54.5% of patients could not be discharged early due to comorbidities or procedural complications. Factors associated with a failure of achieving a total length of stay of ≤ 5 days comprised frailty syndrome, renal impairment as well as new permanent pacemaker implantation, new bundle branch block or atrial fibrillation, life-threatening bleeding, and the use of self-expanding valves. After multivariate adjustment, new permanent pacemaker implantation (odds ratio 6.44; 95% CI 2.59-16.00), life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio 4.19; 95% confidence interval 1.82-9.66) and frailty syndrome (odds ratio 5.15; 95% confidence interval 2.40-11.09; all p < 0.001, respectively) were confirmed as significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

While non-elective patients had acceptable periprocedural outcomes, mortality rates at 1 year were significantly higher compared to elective patients. Approximately only half of elective patients could be discharged early. Improvements in periprocedural care, follow-up strategies and optimized treatment of both elective and non-elective TAVI patients are needed.

Clinical Impact of Standardized TAVR Technique and Care Pathway: Insights From the Optimize PRO Study

BACKGROUND

Procedural success and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have improved, but residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates remain variable because of a lack of uniform periprocedural management and implantation.

OBJECTIVES

The Optimize PRO study evaluates valve performance and procedural outcomes using an "optimized" TAVR care pathway and the cusp overlap technique (COT) in patients receiving the Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) self-expanding valves.

METHODS

Optimize PRO, a nonrandomized, prospective, postmarket study conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, Middle East, and Australia, is enrolling patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and no pre-existing pacemaker. Sites follow a standardized TAVR care pathway, including early discharge and a conduction disturbance management algorithm, and transfemoral deployment using the COT.

RESULTS

A total of 400 attempted implants from the United States and Canada comprised the main cohort of this second interim analysis. The mean age was 78.7 ± 6.6 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk of mortality was 3.0 ± 2.4. The median length of stay was 1 day. There were no instances of moderate or severe AR at discharge. At 30 days, all-cause mortality or stroke was 3.8%, all-cause mortality was 0.8%, disabling stroke was 0.7%, hospital readmission was 10.1%, and cardiovascular rehospitalization was 6.1%. The new PPI rate was 9.8%, 5.8% with 4-step COT compliance. In the multivariable model, right bundle branch block and the depth of the implant increased the risk of PPI, whereas using the 4-step COT lowered 30-day PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the TAVR care pathway and COT resulted in favorable clinical outcomes with no moderate or severe AR and low PPI rates at 30 days while facilitating early discharge and reproducible outcomes across various sites and operators. (Optimize PRO; NCT04091048).

New Practices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: How I Do It in 2023

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) went through a huge evolution in the last decades. Previously performed under general anesthesia, with transoperative transesophageal echocardiography guidance and using cutdown femoral artery access, the procedure has now evolved into a minimalist approach, with local anesthesia, conscious sedation, and the avoidance of invasive lines becoming the new standards. Here, we discuss the minimalist TAVI approach and how we incorporate it into our current clinical practice.

Comparison of Clinical and Economic Outcomes of an Optimized Lean Versus a Standard Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Program (from SOLAR [Safe Outcomes Lean And Resourceful] Study)

The increasing prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) and the increasing number of patients indicated for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can lead to increased hospital constraints. This study aimed to compare, from the hospital perspective, the costs, resource use, and 30-day clinical outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI under an optimized or standard clinical pathway. A single-center, retrospective study was conducted among patients with native AS who underwent TAVI between January 2018 and March 2021. Patients who underwent optimized lean TAVI were propensity-score matched 1:1 to those who underwent standard TAVI. In-hospital costs and 30-day clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. A total of 182 patients (91 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Baseline covariates were well balanced after matching. Patients who underwent lean TAVI had shorter length of stay (median [interquartile range] 3.0 days [2.0 to 6.0] vs 6.0 days [5.0 to 9.0], p <0.001). Patients in the lean TAVI group incurred lower total costs than did those in the standard TAVI group (mean ± SD: $41,346 ± 10,062 vs $50,471 ± 15,115, p = 0.002). There was no between-group difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (2.2% vs 1.1%, p = 0.573) and pacemaker implantations (5.5% vs 6.6%, p = 0.788). Rates of procedural complications were comparable between groups. In conclusion, lean TAVI leads to hospital efficiencies without compromising patient safety. Efforts to streamline the TAVI procedure should be encouraged to improve access to TAVI for patients with AS, amid resource constraints.

Vascular management during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), as an alternative to open heart surgery, has been established as the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access management, the first step in a TAVR procedure, should be managed properly. Moreover, the transfemoral and alternatives such as the transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval approaches are considered access routes during TAVR. More than 90% of cases can be treated via the transfemoral approach in the current TAVR era, whereas other approaches should be considered in patients in whom the transfemoral approach is not suitable. Vascular complications regardless of access route differences are a specific issue of TAVR caused by the use of large sheaths. With the increased number of TAVR cases, we must manage vascular complications and decrease the morbidity and mortality rates associated with TAVR procedures. Thus, this study aimed to review the vascular complications during TAVR and summarize their prognosis, prevention, and adequate management.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

Feasibility and safety of next-day discharge following transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement

Background

Decreased length of stay in the index hospitalization is a tendency in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) era. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility and safety of next-day discharge (NDD) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients following TAVR.

Methods

The study analyzed patients who received TAVR in 2019 to 2022. Thirty-day mortality and readmission rate were compared between BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients.

Results

The proportion of NDD was similar between the BAV and TAV group (45.3 % vs 41.3 %, p = 0.487). In NDD patients, the lower age (72.0 [67.0, 77.0] yrs vs 74.0 [70.0, 80.0] yrs, p = 0.011) and STS score (2.33 [1.56, 3.54] % vs 3.82 [2.38, 5.70] %, p < 0.001) were observed in the BAV group. The NDD BAV patients had higher proportion of post-dilatation (74.3 % vs 50.7 %, p = 0.003) when compared with the TAV patients. The NDD patients was safe with no death both in BAV and TAV patients at 30-day follow-up. Moreover, the readmission rate was comparable between BAV and TAV patients who discharged on the next day after TAVR (8.1 % vs 14.0 %, p = 0.397).

Conclusions

NDD after TAVR was feasible and safe in both BAV and TAV patients. The younger BAV patients with fast recovery deserve the next-day discharge after TAVR.

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical valves

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged in recent years as a safe alternative to redo surgery in high-risk patients. Although early results are encouraging, data beyond short-term outcomes are lacking. Herein, we aimed to assess the 2-year outcomes after ViV-TAVI.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for degenerated surgical valves between 2013 and 2019 at the Cleveland Clinic were reviewed. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and congestive heart failure (CHF) hospitalizations. We used time-to-event analyses to assess the primary outcomes. Further, we measured the changes in transvalvular gradients and the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-eight patients were studied (mean age = 76 years; 65% males). At 2 years of follow-up, all-cause mortality and CHF hospitalizations occurred in 15 (8%) and 28 (14.9%) patients, respectively. On multivariable analysis, the postprocedural length of stay was a significant predictor for both all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 1.19) and CHF hospitalization (HR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.27). However, the internal diameter of the surgical valve was not associated with significant differences in both primary endpoints. For hemodynamic outcomes, nine patients (4.8%) developed SVD. The mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients remained stable over the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVI for degenerated surgical valves was associated with favorable 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Further studies are needed to better understand the role of ViV-TAVI as a treatment option in the life management of aortic valve disease.

The 30-Day Readmission Rate of Same-Day Discharge Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (from National Readmission Database 2015 to 2019)

The length of hospital stay after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has decreased over the years, and next-day discharge is being increasingly adopted in clinical practice. Whether further expediting discharge after TAVI by allowing same-day discharge (SDD) in selected patients is safe or derives additional benefits remains unanswered. Using the United States Nationwide Readmission Database 2015 to 2019, we identified 196,618 patients who received TAVI (mean age 79.5 8.4 years, 45.0% female). Of these, 245 patients (0.12%) were discharged on the same day they received TAVI (SDD group), and the remaining 196,373 were discharged on a different day (different-day discharge [DDD] group). A propensity score-matched analysis was done. The rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge was not significantly different between the SDD and DDD groups (11.0% vs 10.6%, hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.90, p = 0.921). Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the SDD group than the DDD group ($37,811 ± 18,029 vs $49,130 ± 27,007, p <0.001). In conclusion, the 30-day readmission rate was similar for patients discharged on the same day after TAVI and for patients discharged at a later time point.

Predictors of early discharge after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insight from the CoreValve ClinicalService

AIMS

The aim of this study was to minimize the procedure, and reduce the length of hospital stay (LoS) is the future objective for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI).Aims of the study are to identify procedural and electrocardiographical predictors of fast-track discharge in patients who underwent TAVI.

METHODS

Patients treated with TAVI included in the One Hospital ClinicalService project were categorized according to the LoS. 'Fast-Track' population, with a postprocedural LoS less than or equal to 3 days, was compared with the 'Slow-Track' population with a postprocedural LoS greater than 3 days.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred and one patients were collected. Despite single baseline characteristics being almost similar between the two groups, Slow-Track group showed a higher surgical risk (P < 0.001). Patients in the Slow-Track group were more frequently treated with general anaesthesia (P = 0.002) and less frequently predilated (P < 0.001) and received a lower amount of contrast media. No difference between Slow-Track and Fast-Track patients was observed at 30 days in death and in cardiovascular rehospitalization.In the multivariable analysis, STS score of at least 4% [odds ratio (OR): 1.64; P = 0.01], general anaesthesia (OR: 2.80; P = 0.03), predilation (OR: 0.45; P < 001), NYHA 3-4 at baseline (OR: 1.65; P = 0.01), AVB I/LBBB/RBBB onset (OR: 2.41; P < 0.001) and in-hospital new PM (OR: 2.63; P < 0.001) were independently associated with a higher probability of Slow-Track.

CONCLUSION

Fast-Track patients were safely discharged home showing no difference in clinical outcomes after discharge up to 30 days compared with the Slow-Track group. The STS score, general anaesthesia, NYHA 3--4 at baseline, in-hospital onset of conduction disturbances and new PM implantation after TAVI turned out to be predictors of Slow-Track.

Update on Minimalist TAVR Care Pathways: Approaches to Care in 2022

Purpose of Review

This review summarizes current data supporting a minimalist TAVR approach and identifies the need for additional study to optimize TAVR care. The authors discuss future directions of the TAVR landscape and how this necessitates evolution of minimalist care pathways.

Recent Findings

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a mainstay in the treatment of aortic stenosis since the initial procedure in 2002. Recently, attention has shifted to TAVR optimization and the minimalist approach with a focus on minimizing procedural sedation, protocolization of perioperative management, and prioritization on early discharge. This approach has been shown to be safe and reduce procedure time, length of stay, and overall cost for hospital systems.

Summary

The minimalist care pathway avoids general anesthesia, shortens procedure time and length of stay, and reduces cost without changing mortality or readmission rates at 30 days. A variety of protocols have been proposed without a clear consensus on specific components or patient eligibility. There is a continued need for data regarding patient risk stratification, valve selection, and discharge strategy as TAVR becomes increasingly common.

Rationale and design of the Project to look for early discharge in patients undergoing TAVR with ACURATE (POLESTAR Trial)

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an established treatment strategy for elderly patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) across the entire operative risk spectrum. Streamlined TAVR protocols along with reduced procedure time and expedited ambulation promote early hospital discharge. Selection of patients suitable for safe early discharge after TAVR might improve healthcare efficiency.

STUDY DESIGN

The POLESTAR trial is an international, multi-center, prospective, observational study which aims to evaluate the safety of early discharge in selected patients who undergo TAVR with the supra-annular functioning self-expanding ACURATE Neo transcatheter heart valve (THV). A total of 250 patients will be included based on a set of baseline criteria indicating potential early discharge (within 48 h post-TAVR). Primary study endpoints include Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined safety at 30 days and VARC-3 defined efficacy at 30 days and 1 year. Endpoints will be compared between early discharge and non-early discharge cohorts with a distinct landmark analysis at 48 h post-TAVR. Secondary endpoints include quality of life assessed using EQ5D-5L and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) questionnaires and resource costs compared between discharge groups.

SUMMARY

The POLESTAR trial prospectively evaluates safety and feasibility of an early discharge protocol for TAVR using the ACURATE Neo THV.

Simplified TAVR Procedure: How Far Is It Possible to Go?

Increasing operators’ experience and improvement of the technique have resulted in a drastic reduction in complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with lower surgical risk. In parallel, the procedure was considerably simplified, with a routine default approach including local anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory, percutaneous femoral approach, radial artery as the secondary access, prosthesis implantation without predilatation, left ventricle wire pacing and early discharge. Thus, the “simplified” TAVR adopted in most centers nowadays is a real revolution of the technique. However, simplified TAVR must be accompanied upstream by a rigorous selection of patients who can benefit from a minimalist procedure in order to guarantee its safety. The minimalist strategy must not become dogmatic and careful pre-, per- and post-procedural evaluation of patients with well-defined protocols guarantee optimal care following TAVR. This review aims to evaluate the benefits and limits of the simplified TAVR procedure in a current and future vision.

Embolic Protection with the TriGuard 3 System in Nonagenarian Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improves the survival and life quality of nonagenarian patients with aortic stenosis. Stroke remains one of the most worrisome complications following TAVR. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) may reduce neurological complications after TAVR. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of CEPDs during TAVR in nonagenarian patients. Methods: Between January 2018 and October 2021, 869 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR) at our center. Of these, 51 (5.9%) patients were older than ninety years. In 33 consecutive nonagenarian patients, TF-TAVR was implanted without CEPDs using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expandable valves (SEVs). Eighteen consecutive nonagenarians underwent TF-TAVR using a CEPD (CP group). Follow up period was in-hospital or 30 days after the procedure, respectively. Results: Minor access site complications occurred in two patients (3.9%) and were not CEPD-associated. Postinterventional delirium occurred in nine patients (17.6%). Periprocedural minor non-disabling stroke and delirium occurred in ten patients (19.6%). Periprocedural major fatal stroke occurred in two patients in the BEV group (3.9%). Two patients in the BEV group died due to postinterventional pneumonia with sepsis. The mortality rate was 7.8%. The results did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Age alone is no longer a contraindication for TAVR. CEPD using the Triguard 3 system in nonagenarian TAVR patients was feasible and safe and did not increase access site complications.

Same-Day Discharge Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Multicenter PROTECT TAVR Study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of same-day discharge (SDD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant stress on health care systems worldwide. SDD in highly selected TAVR patients can facilitate the provision of essential cardiovascular care while managing competing COVID-19 resource demands.

Methods

Patient selection for SDD was at the discretion of the local multidisciplinary heart team, across 7 international sites. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, all-cause readmission, major vascular complications, and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation.

Results

From March 2020 to August 2021, 124 of 2,100 patients who underwent elective transfemoral TAVR were selected for SDD. The average age was 78.9 ± 7.8 years, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.4 (IQR: 1.4-4.2), and 32.3% (n = 40) had preexisting PPMs. There were no major vascular complications, strokes, or deaths during the index admission. One patient (0.8%) required PPM implantation for complete heart block and was discharged the same day. No patient required a PPM between discharge home and 30-day follow-up. The composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, all-cause readmission, major vascular complications, and new PPM at 30 days occurred in 5.7% patients (n = 6 of 106).

Conclusions

SDD post-TAVR is safe and feasible in selected patients at low risk for adverse clinical events postdischarge. This strategy may have a potential role in highly selected patients even when the COVID-19 pandemic abates.

The COORDINATE Pilot Study: Impact of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Coordinator Program on Hospital and Patient Outcomes

The transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment pathway is complex, leading to procedure-related delays. Dedicated TAVI coordinators can improve pathway efficiency. COORDINATE was a pilot observational prospective registry at three German centers that enrolled consecutive elective patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI to investigate the impact a TAVI coordinator program. Pathway parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed before (control group) and after TAVI coordinator program implementation (intervention phase). The number of repeated diagnostics remained unchanged after implementation. Patients with separate hospitalizations for screening and TAVI had long delays, which increased after implementation (65 days pre- vs. 103 days post-implementation); hospitalizations combining these were more efficient. The mean time between TAVI and hospital discharge remained constant. Nurse (p = 0.001) and medical technician (p = 0.008) working hours decreased. Patient satisfaction increased, and more consistent/intensive contact between patients and staff was reported. TAVI coordinators provided more post-TAVI support, including discharge management. No adverse effects on post-procedure or 30-day outcomes were seen. This pilot suggests that TAVI coordinator programs may improve aspects of the TAVI pathway, including post-TAVI care and patient satisfaction, without compromising safety. These findings will be further investigated in the BENCHMARK registry.

One-Year Outcomes and Trends over Two Eras of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Real-World Practice

Background: Data reflecting the benefit of procedural improvements in real-world transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) practice are sparse. Aims: To compare outcomes and trends of two TAVI eras from real Italian practice. Methods: A total of 1811 and 2939 TAVI patients enrolled in the national, prospective OBSERVANT and OBSERVANT II studies in 2010–2012 and 2016–2018, respectively, were compared in a cohort study. Outcomes were adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting and propensity score matching. Results: The median age (83.0 (79.0–86.0) vs. 83.0 (79.0–86.0)) and EuroSCORE II (5.2 (3.2–7.7) vs. 5.1 (3.1–8.1)) of OBSERVANT and OBSERVANT II patients were similar. At 1 year, patients of the OBSERVANT II study had a significantly lower risk of all-cause death (10.6% vs. 16.3%, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.63 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.52–0.76)) and rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) (14.3% vs. 19.5%, Sub-distribution HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.60–0.84)), whereas rates of stroke (3.1% vs. 3.6%) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (16.6% vs. 18.0%) were comparable between study groups. Conclusions: Age and risk profile among patients undergoing TAVI in Italy remained substantially unchanged between the 2010–2012 and 2016–2018 time periods. After adjustment, patients undergoing TAVI in the most recent era had lower risk of all-cause death and rehospitalization for HF at 1 year, whereas rates of stroke and PPI did not differ significantly.

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

Background

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic upset healthcare systems and their logistics worldwide. We sought to assess safety and effectiveness of an optimized logistics for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) pathway developed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis. An optimized TAVI logistics based on performing TAVI work-up and procedure during the same hospitalization was used during the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes of patients treated during the pandemic were compared with an historical cohort of patients undergoing TAVI with staged work-up before the pandemic within an homogeneous timeframe.

Results

Of 536 patients, 227 (42.4%) underwent TAVI during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of 26.5% compared to the pre-pandemic period (n = 309). The median age was 81 (77–85) years and STS score was 3.4 (2.2–5.6)%. Lower rates of in-hospital major vascular complications (2.2% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.01) and life-threatening bleeding (0.4% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.01) were reported in the COVID-19 period, whereas no difference in acute kidney injury (7.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.85) rate was reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. No difference in 30-day rates of all-cause death (4.0 vs. 4.5, p = 0.75) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (4.0 vs. 6.1, p = 0.26) were reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods.

Conclusions

The use of optimized single-hospitalization logistics for TAVI workup and procedure developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, showed to be as safe and effective as the two-stage TAVI pathway previously adopted, allowing the minimization of potential exposure to COVID-19 infection and shortening times to treatment for severely symptomatic patients.

Impact of post-procedural length of stay on short-term outcomes and readmissions after TAVR and MitraClip

Background

Post-procedural hospital length of stay (P-LOS) is an important determinant of cost-related outcomes. In the present study, we aimed to assess the impact of P-LOS on short-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and MitraClip.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study, retrieving data from the National Readmissions Database (NRD) for patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR and MitraClip between January 2014 and December 2017. We employed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between P-LOS and 30-day all-cause mortality and readmissions.

Results

A total of 65,726 and 7347 patients underwent TAVR and MitraClip, respectively within the study period. After 30 days of discharge, 13.7% and 15.1% of TAVR and MitraClip patients were readmitted for any reason, while 0.5% and 0.9% died within the readmission hospitalization. A longer P-LOS was associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause readmission in both TAVR (OR = 1.027, 95% CI [1.023-1.032]) and MitraClip (OR = 1.025, 95%CI [1.012-1.038]) patients. This finding remained true for patients who developed or did not develop complications after both procedures. In terms of 30-day inhospital mortality, a longer P-LOS was associated with a higher risk in TAVR patients (OR = 1.039, 95%CI [1.028-1.049]), but no increased risk in MitraClip patients (OR = 1.014, 95%CI [0.985-1.044]). Other predictors of 30-day readmission after both procedures included heart failure, post-procedural acute kidney injury, and discharge with disability.

Conclusion

The current study shows that shorter P-LOS was associated with reduced risk of short-term readmission after both TAVR and MitraClip and reduced short-term mortality after TAVR (mainly in patients who developed post-procedural complications). Shorter P-LOS is a predictor of readmission and sicker patient group. Patients requiring longer LOS should be followed closely to prevent readmission and enhance better outcomes. Future studies evaluating P-LOS impact on long-term and patient-oriented outcomes are needed.

Vascular Complications in TAVR: Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has replaced surgical aortic valve replacement as the new gold standard in elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, alongside this novel approach, new complications emerged that require swift diagnosis and adequate management. Vascular access marks the first step in a TAVR procedure. There are several possible access sites available for TAVR, including the transfemoral approach as well as transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval. Most cases are primarily performed through a transfemoral approach, while other access routes are mainly conducted in patients not suitable for transfemoral TAVR. As vascular access is achieved primarily by large bore sheaths, vascular complications are one of the major concerns during TAVR. With rising numbers of TAVR being performed, the focus on prevention and successful management of vascular complications will be of paramount importance to lower morbidity and mortality of the procedures. Herein, we aimed to review the most common vascular complications associated with TAVR and summarize their diagnosis, management, and prevention of vascular complications in TAVR.

An upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications still represent an important issue after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of upfront use of an adjunctive Angio-Seal (AS) plug-based system on top of suture-based devices (SBDs) for endovascular haemostasis after transfemoral (TF) TAVI.

METHODS

From January 2019 to April 2020, 332 consecutive patients with preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) assessment underwent fully percutaneous TF-TAVI. The primary outcomes were 30-day major vascular complications and major or life-threatening (LT) bleeding due to endovascular closure system failure. A total of 246 TF-TAVI patients (123 pairs), undergoing either isolated SBD or SBD+AS, were matched using the propensity-score method.

RESULTS

At 30 days, patients receiving SBD+AS had lower rates of major/LT bleeding (1.6% vs 8.9%, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04-0.78; p<0.01) and major vascular complications (1.6% vs 8.9%, OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.78; p<0.01). In addition, the use of SBD+AS was associated with a significant cost saving related to the vascular event (mean difference -315.3 € per patient, 95% CI: -566.4 € to -64.1 €; p=0.01), and a higher probability of next-day discharge (NDD) after TAVI (30.9% vs 16.3%, OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.25-4.25; p<0.01). No difference in all-cause 30-day mortality was observed (3.3% vs 1.6% for SBD and SBD+AS groups, respectively, OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.09-2.74; p=0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

An upfront combined strategy with an additional AS plug-based device on top of SBDs was shown to reduce major vascular complications and major/LT bleeding due to closure system failure after TF-TAVI. This approach was associated with a cost saving and with a higher probability of NDD compared to the use of isolated SBD. Visual summary. Effectiveness of the upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation using Angio-Seal on top of a suture-based device (SBD) versus the isolated use of SBD. LT: life-threatening; TF-TAVI: transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Temporal Changes in Mortality After Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Retrospective Analysis of US Medicare Patients (2012-2019)

Background

The treatment of aortic stenosis is evolving rapidly. Pace of change in the care of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) differs. We sought to determine differences in temporal changes in 30‐day mortality, 30‐day readmission, and length of stay after TAVR and SAVR.

Methods and Results

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated in the United States between 2012 and 2019 using data from the Medicare Data Set Analytic File 100% Fee for Service database. We included consecutive patients enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B and aged ≥65 years who had SAVR or transfemoral TAVR. We defined 3 study cohorts, including all SAVR, isolated SAVR (without concomitant procedures), and elective isolated SAVR and TAVR. The primary end point was 30‐day mortality; secondary end points were 30‐day readmission and length of stay. Statistical models controlled for patient demographics, frailty measured by the Hospital Frailty Risk Score, and comorbidities measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). Cox proportional hazard models were developed with TAVR versus SAVR as the main covariates with a 2‐way interaction term with index year. We repeated these analyses restricted to full aortic valve replacement hospitals offering both SAVR and TAVR. The main study cohort included 245 269 patients with SAVR and 188 580 patients with TAVR, with mean±SD ages 74.3±6.0 years and 80.7±6.9 years, respectively, and 36.5% and 46.2% female patients, respectively. Patients with TAVR had higher ECI scores (6.4±3.6 versus 4.4±3) and were more frail (55.4% versus 33.5%). Total aortic valve replacement volumes increased 61% during the 7‐year span; TAVR volumes surpassed SAVR in 2017. The magnitude of mortality benefit associated with TAVR increased until 2016 in the main cohort (2012: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67–0.86]; 2016: HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.36–0.43]); although TAVR continued to have lower mortality rates from 2017 to 2019, the magnitude of benefit over SAVR was attenuated. A similar pattern was seen with readmission, with a lower risk of readmission from 2012 to 2016 for patients with TAVR (2012: HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.63–0.73]; 2016: HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41–0.45]) followed by a lesser difference from 2017 to 2019. Year over year, TAVR was associated with increasingly shorter lengths of stay compared with SAVR (2012: HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.84–1.98]; 2019: HR, 5.34 [95% CI, 5.22–5.45]). These results were consistent in full aortic valve replacement hospitals.

Conclusions

The rate of improvement in TAVR outpaced SAVR until 2016, with the recent presence of U‐shaped phenomena suggesting a narrowing gap between outcomes. Future longitudinal research is needed to determine the long‐term implications of lowering risk profiles across treatment options to guide case selection and clinical care.

Setting a benchmark for resource utilization and quality of care in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Europe-Rationale and design of the international BENCHMARK registry

Background

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for treating aortic stenosis (AS) has increased exponentially in recent years. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease, disparities in quality of care (QoC) for TAVI patients remain widespread across Europe. Tailored QoC measures will help to reduce resource utilization and improve patient outcomes without compromising patient safety. Using a clear set of QoC measures, the BENCHMARK registry aims to document the progress that can be achieved if such tailored QoC measures are implemented.

Methods

The BENCHMARK registry (BENCHMARK) is a non‐interventional, multicenter registry in patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing TAVI with a 1‐ and 12‐months follow‐up. BENCHMARK will be conducted at 30 centers across Europe and will enroll a total of 2400 consecutive TAVI patients. Patients suffering from severe symptomatic AS who undergo TAVI with a balloon‐expandable transcatheter aortic valve will be included. The registry will comprise four phases: (1) a retrospective baseline evaluation phase; (2) an education phase; (3) an implementation phase; and (4) a prospective effect documentation phase (prospective phase). The registry's primary objectives are to reduce the length of hospital stay and accelerate the post‐procedural patient recovery pathway, but without compromising safety. The study started in April 2021 and has an estimated completion date of May 2023.

Discussion

BENCHMARK will establish QoC measures to reduce resource utilization, intensive care unit bed occupancy, and overall length of hospitalization with uncompromised patient safety post‐TAVI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04579445).

Highlights

The BENCHMARK registry is a non‐interventional, multicenter international registry.

A total of 2400 patients with severe AS will be enrolled at 30 European centers.

The registry is designed to be partly retrospective and partly prospective.

The BENCHMARK registry will help to improve TAVI QoC standards across Europe.

Same Day Discharge during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Highly Selected Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a standardized clinical pathway allows most patients to achieve safe next-day discharge. This approach has been successfully implemented across global centers as part of the Benchmark Program. Considering restricted hospital resources resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, a modified same day discharge (SDD) clinical pathway was implemented for selected TAVR patients at a single Benchmark site.

Methods

All patients accepted for TAVR were assessed for the SDD clinical pathway. Eligibility criteria included adequate social support and accessibility to the TAVR program post-discharge. Patients with preexisting conduction disease were excluded. The clinical pathway comprised of mobilization, bloodwork and electrocardiogram 4 hours post-TAVR and discharge ≥8 hours following groin hemostasis.

Results

From June to December 2020, 142 patients underwent TAVR at a single community Benchmark site. Of those, 29 highly selected patients were successfully discharged the same day using the SDD clinical pathway. There were no vascular access complications, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, or mortality in the SDD group during index admission or at 30-day follow-up. When compared to a standard therapy group, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day cardiovascular readmission.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of same day discharge post-TAVR in a highly selected cohort of patients, with no observable difference in safety outcomes when compared to patients who were discharged according to standard institutional practice.Abbreviations: AS: aortic stenosis; ACT: Activated clotting time; AV: atrioventricular; AVB: atrioventricular block; BBB: bundle branch block; CAIC: Canadian Society for Cardiovascular Angiography; CCL: cardiac catheterization laboratory; CT: Computed topography; CV: cardiovascular; IQR: Interquartile Range; IVCD: intraventricular conduction delay; LBBB: left bundle branch block; LOS: length of stay; NDD: next day discharge; PPM: permanent pacemaker; RBBB: right bundle branch block; SCAI: Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention; SD: standard deviation; SDD: same day discharge; ST: standard therapy; STS PROM: society of thoracic surgeons predicted risk of mortality; TAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TF: transfemoral; THV: transcatheter heart valve; TTE: transthoracic echocardiogram; VARC: Valve Academic Research Consortium.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed with selective telemetry monitoring: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Telemetry monitoring (TM) with or without intensive care unit (ICU) admission is the standard of care after Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Regarding to improvements of the technique and procedural results, TM may be considered only in selected patients. We aimed to confirm feasibility and safety of selective TM in patients undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 449 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR. Patients were transferred to general cardiology ward (GCW) without TM after the procedure when stable clinical state, transfemoral access, no baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%, and no complication including any electrocardiogram (ECG) change within 1 h after the procedure ("low-risk" group). Others patients were considered for TM in ICU ("high-risk" group). The primary endpoint evaluated in-hospital major adverse events after unit admission according to VARC-2 criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age was 81.8 ± 7.5 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 7.5 ± 4.8%. In total, 116 patients (25.8%) were considered as "low-risk" patients and 163 patients (36.3%) were referred to GCW, including those with immediate pacemaker implantation. A total of 96 patients (21.3%) reached the primary endpoint including mainly conductive disorders (12.8%). No major adverse events, particularly no late severe conductive disorder, occurred in the "low-risk" group (negative predictive value of 100%). Baseline RBBB (p < 0.01), LVEF < 40% (p = 0.02) and "high-risk" group (p < 0.01) were predictive of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Using rigorous periprocedural selection criteria, patients' admission in GCW without TM can be routinely and safely performed in 1/3 of patients after TAVR.

How the COVID-19 pandemic changed treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a single cardiac center experience

Background

Currently, two effective therapeutic options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) are available, one catheter-based [transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)], the other open surgical approach [surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)]. The COVID-19 pandemic has limited the availability of medical procedures. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess if this pandemic had any impact on the treatment strategy of severe AS in a single cardiac center.

Methods

This study involved AS patients treated in 3-month periods (February through April) over 3 consecutive years 2018, 2019 [defined as COV(-) group] and 2020 [COV(+)]. We assessed if there were any differences regarding patients' clinical profile, applied therapeutic method, procedure complexity and early clinical outcomes.

Results

In the years 2018 through 2019, approximately 50% of AS patients were treated classically (SAVR) while in 2020 this rate dropped to 34%. The preoperative clinical characteristic of TAVI subjects was comparable irrespective of the year. Regarding SAVR, more patients in COV(+) underwent urgent and more complex procedures. More of them were found in NYHA class III or IV, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (51.9%±14.4% vs. 58.3%±8.1%; P=0.021) than in COV(-) individuals. During the pandemic, a change in applied therapeutic methods and differences in patients' clinical profile did not have an unfavorable impact on in-hospital mortality (2.0% before vs. 3.6% during pandemic) and morbidity. Of note, intubation time and in-hospital stay were significantly shorter (P<0.05) in 2020 (4.2 hours and 7.5 days) than in the previous years (7.5 hours and 9.0 days, respectively).

Conclusions

The coronavirus pandemic has changed substantially the management of severe AS. The shift into less invasive treatment method of AS patients resulted in shortening of in-hospital stay without compromise of short-term outcomes.

One-Year Costs Associated with Hospitalizations Due to Aortic Stenosis in Canada

Background

There is a lack of data on the burden of patients hospitalized with aortic stenosis (AS) in Canada. The primary study objective was to document the index and 1-year costs of hospitalized patients with AS in Canada. Secondary objectives were to explore results by treatment modality and Canadian provinces.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with a most responsible diagnosis (MRD) of AS during fiscal year 2014/2015 were identified using Canadian administrative databases. Costs were calculated for the index admission and for up to 1 year. For our secondary analyses, patients were classified according to the intervention received: surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), SAVR with coronary artery bypass graft, or transfemoral or transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Hospitalized AS patients who did not undergo SAVR or transcatheter aortic valve implantation were classified as the untreated group. The data were also analyzed by Canadian provinces.

Results

During fiscal year 2014/15, a total of 7217 Canadians were hospitalized with an MRD of AS. The mean (standard deviation) age of our population was 74.2 (11.5) years, and 39% were female. The 1-year hospital costs associated with an MRD of AS in Canada were calculated at $393 million. Our secondary analyses suggest that patient demographics (mean age ranging from 69 to 82 years) and outcomes (median length of stay ranging from 6 to 12 days) differ among treatment modalities and Canadian provinces.

Conclusions

AS hospitalizations result in a significant cost burden in Canada. Future research is needed to better understand variation among treatment modalities and Canadian provinces.