The medically managed patient with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in the TAVR era: Patient characteristics, reasons for medical management, and quality of shared decision making at heart valve treatment centers

Background Little is known about patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who receive medical management despite evaluation at a heart valve treatment center. Objective We identified patient characteristics associated with medical management, physician-reported reasons for selecting medical management, and patients’ perceptions of their involvement and satisfaction with treatment selection. Methods and results Of 454 patients evaluated for AS at 9 established heart valve treatment centers from December 12, 2013 to August 19, 2014, we included 407 with severe symptomatic AS. Information was collected using medical record review and survey of patients and treating physicians. Of 407 patients, 212 received transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), 124 received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and 71 received medical management (no SAVR/TAVR). Thirty-day predicted mortality was higher in patients receiving TAVR (8.7%) or medical management (9.8%) compared with SAVR (3.4%) (P<0.001). Physician-reported reasons for medical management included patient preference (31.0%), medical futility (19.7%), inoperability/anatomic infeasibility (11.3%), and inadequate vascular access (8.5%). Compared with patients receiving AVR, medically managed patients were less likely to report that they received enough information about the pros and cons of treatment options (P = 0.03), that their physicians involved them in treatment decisions (P<0.001), and that final decisions were the right ones (P<0.001). Conclusions Patient preference was the most common physician-reported reason for selecting non-invasive AS management, yet patients not undergoing AVR after valve center evaluation reported being less likely to receive sufficient education about treatment options and more likely to feel uncertain about final treatment decisions. Greater attention to shared decision making may improve the experience of care for this vulnerable group of patients

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions

ObjectivesThis multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead.BackgroundDespite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability.MethodsData from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed.ResultsThe Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device‐related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5–221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment.ConclusionThe Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/1/ccd28476.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/2/ccd28476_am.pd

Incidence and Prevention of Strokes in TAVI

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a widely adopted option for many inoperable and high risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, and clinical trials continue to show great benefit with regards to mortality and major cardiovascular endpoints. As the technology continues to expand and possibly grow to include intermediate and low risk populations, investigators have remained focused on efforts to reduce the risk of peri-procedural complications, of which neurologic events remain some of the most feared. Fortunately, contemporary studies have shown a significant decline in the risk of stroke with TAVI as compared to early clinical trials, and no difference when compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in the most recent trials. This review will focus on current methods for diagnosing, defining, and quantifying the effect of stroke after TAVI, explore the evidence with regards to stroke risk in various populations undergoing these procedures, discuss possible mechanisms for both early and late neurologic events after TAVI, and discuss strategies for both pharmacologic and device based embolic protection during these procedures