Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: impact of pre-procedural FEops HEARTguide assessment on device size selection in borderline annulus size cases

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate device size selection in patients within the borderline annulus size range undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to assess if pre-procedural patient-specific computer simulation will lead to the selection of a different device size than standard of care.

BACKGROUND

In TAVR, appropriate device sizing is imperative. In borderline annulus size cases no standardised technique for tailored device size selection is currently available. Pre-procedural patient-specific computer simulation can be used, predicting the risk for paravalvular leakage (PVL) and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI).

METHODS

In this multicentre retrospective study, 140 patients in the borderline annulus size range were included. Hereafter, device size selection was left to the discretion of the operator. After TAVR, in 24 of the 140 patients, patient-specific computer simulation calculated the most appropriate device size expected to give the lowest risk for PVL and need for PPI. In these 24 patients, device size selection based on patient-specific computer simulation was compared with standard-of-care device size selection relying on a standardised matrix (Medtronic).

RESULTS

In a significant proportion of the 140 patients (26.4%) a different device size than recommended by the matrix was implanted. In 10 of the 24 patients (41.7%) in whom a computer simulation was performed, a different device size was recommended than by means of the matrix.

CONCLUSIONS

Device size selection in patients within the borderline annulus size range is still ambiguous. In these patients, patient-specific computer simulation is feasible and can contribute to a more tailored device size selection.

Adherence to geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: a multicenter prospective cohort study in Belgium

Background

In the general older population, geriatric assessment (GA)-guided treatment plans can improve overall survival, quality of life and functional status (FS). In GA-related research in geriatric oncology, studies mainly focused on geriatric screening and GA but not on geriatric recommendations, interventions and follow-up. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken in older patients with cancer.

Patient and methods

A prospective Belgian multicenter (N = 22) cohort study included patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor upon oncologic treatment decision. Patients with an abnormal result on the geriatric screening (G8 ≤14/17) underwent GA. Geriatric recommendations were formulated based on GA results. At follow-up the adherence to geriatric recommendations was documented including a description of actions undertaken.

Results

From November 2012 till February 2015, G8 screening was carried out in 8451 patients, of which 5838 patients had an abnormal result. Geriatric recommendations data were available for 5631 patients. Geriatric recommendations were made for 4459 patients. Geriatric interventions data were available for 4167 patients. A total of 12 384 geriatric recommendations were made. At least one different geriatric recommendation was implemented in 2874 patients. A dietician, social worker and geriatrician intervened most frequently for problems detected on the nutritional, social and functional domain. A total of 7569 actions were undertaken for a total of 5725 geriatric interventions, most frequently nutritional support and supplements, extended home care and psychological support.

Conclusions

This large-scale Belgian study focuses on the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken and contributes to the optimal management of older patients with cancer. We identified the domains for which geriatric recommendations are most frequently made and adhered to, and which referrals to other health care workers and facilities are frequently applied in the multidisciplinary approach of older patients with cancer.

Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery

PURPOSE

Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes.

METHODS

Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes.

RESULTS

The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment.

CONCLUSION

The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.

Serial comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly head and neck cancer patients undergoing curative radiotherapy identifies evolution of multidimensional health problems and is indicative of quality of life

Head and neck (H&N) cancer is mainly a cancer of the elderly; however, the implementation of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to quantify functional age in these patients has not yet been studied. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of screening tools [Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13), G8 and the Combined Screening Tool 'VES-13 + (17-G8)' or CST], the feasibility of serial CGA, and correlations with health-related quality of life evolution [HRQOL; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires (EORTC QLQ)-C30 and -HN35] during therapy in hundred patients, aged ≥65 years, with primary H&N cancer undergoing curative radio(chemo)therapy. Respectively 36.8%, 69.0%, 62.1% and 71.3% were defined vulnerable according to VES-13, G8, CST and CGA at week 0, mostly due to presence of severe grade co-morbidities, difficulties in community functioning and nutritional problems. At week 4, significantly more patients were identified vulnerable due to nutritional, functional and emotional deterioration. The CST did not achieve the predefined proportion necessary for validation. Vulnerable patients reported lower function and higher symptom HRQOL scores as compared with fit patients. A comparable deterioration in HRQOL was observed in both groups through therapy. In conclusion, G8 remains the screening tool of choice. Serial CGA identifies the evolution of multidimensional health problems and HRQOL conditions during therapy with potential to guide individualised supportive care.