Patient‐Defined Goals for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Qualitative Analysis

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for aortic valve replacement are a unique population with multiple treatment options, including medical therapy, surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Traditionally, in elderly populations, goals of treatment may favour quality of life over survival. Professional guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in shared decision making, a process that may lead to decisions more aligned with patient-defined goals of care. Goals of care for high-risk patients with AS are not well defined in the literature, and patient-reported barriers to shared decision making highlight the need for explicit encouragement from clinicians for patient involvement

Catheter-based intervention for pulmonary vein stenosis due to fibrosing mediastinitis: The Mayo Clinic experience

AbstractIntroductionFibrosing mediastinitis (FM) is a rare but fatal disease characterized by an excessive fibrotic reaction in the mediastinum, which can lead to life-threatening stenosis of the pulmonary veins (PV). Catheter-based intervention is currently the only viable option for therapy. However, the current literature on how best to manage these difficult cases, especially in regards to sequential interventions and their potential complications is very limited.MethodsWe searched through a database of all patients who have undergone PV interventions at the Earl H. Wood Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory in Mayo Clinic, Rochester. From this collection, we selected patients that underwent PV intervention to relieve stenosis secondary to FM.ResultsEight patients were identified, with a mean age of 41years (24–59years). Five were men, and three were women. Three patients underwent balloon angioplasty alone, and five patients had stents placed. The majority of patients had acute hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement. More than one intervention was required in five patients, four patients had at least one episode of restenosis, and four patients died within four weeks of their first PV intervention.ConclusionsWe describe the largest reported case series of catheter-based intervention for PV stenosis in FM. Although catheter-based therapy improved hemodynamics, short-term vascular patency, and patient symptoms, the rate of life-threatening complications, restenosis, and mortality associated with these interventions was found to be high. Despite these associated risks, catheter-based intervention is the only palliative option available to improve quality of life in severely symptomatic patients with PV stenosis and FM. Patients with PV stenosis and FM (especially those with bilateral disease) have an overall poor prognosis in spite of undergoing these interventions due to the progressive and recalcitrant nature of the disease. This underscores the need for further innovative approaches to manage this disease

Shared Decision Making in the Heart Team

This heart team review gives an overview of the current status of SDM in heart teams, and investigates the perceived needs for implementation of a SDM approach in clinical practice through an exploratory cross-sectional survey (N=101) and in-depth interviews (N=9) among an international community of heart team physicians specialized in HVD. Although heart team physicians agree on the importance of involving patients in heart team treatment decisions, half leaned toward the heart team making final decisions. In addition, limited understanding of the concept of SDM poses another barrier for physicians in involving patients in their own clinical practice. Finally, limited knowledge of and experience with the use of evidence-based decision aids is hampering wider implementation of SDM in clinical practice. The perceived needs and requirements for implementation of SDM according to heart team physicians forecast a long and winding road forward to sustainable implementation of SDM in heart teams. However, directly addressing attitudes, skills and tools may pave the way to effective implementation of SDM in heart teams. In conclusion, SDM is a means to improve care delivery for patients with HVD. Barriers exist for successful implementation by heart teams, yet opportunities arise as the culture shifts to physicians supporting patient engagement in decision making

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

Cardiology providers’ recommendations for treatments and use of patient decision aids for multivessel coronary artery disease

Background: Rates of recommending percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vary across clinicians. Whether clinicians agree on preferred treatment options for multivessel coronary artery disease patients has not been well studied. Methods and results: We distributed a survey to 104 clinicians from the Northern New England Cardiovascular Study Group through email and at a regional meeting with 88 (84.6%) responses. The survey described three clinical vignettes of multivessel coronary artery disease patients. For each patient vignette participants selected appropriate treatment options and whether they would use a patient decision aid. The likelihood of choosing PCI only or PCI/CABG over CABG only was modeled using a multinomial regression. Across all vignettes, participants selected CABG only as an appropriate treatment option 24.2% of the time, PCI only 25.4% of the time, and both CABG or PCI as appropriate treatment options 50.4% of the time. Surgeons were less likely to choose PCI over CABG (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.59) or both treatments over CABG only (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03, 0.34) relative to cardiologists. Overall, 65% of participants responded they would use a patient decision aid with each vignette. Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment options across cardiologists and surgeons for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Treatment choice is influenced by both patient characteristics and clinician specialty

Catheter-based intervention for pulmonary vein stenosis due to fibrosing mediastinitis: The Mayo Clinic experience

Fibrosing mediastinitis (FM) is a rare but fatal disease characterized by an excessive fibrotic reaction in the mediastinum, which can lead to life-threatening stenosis of the pulmonary veins (PV). Catheter-based intervention is currently the only viable option for therapy. However, the current literature on how best to manage these difficult cases, especially in regards to sequential interventions and their potential complications is very limited. We searched through a database of all patients who have undergone PV interventions at the Earl H. Wood Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory in Mayo Clinic, Rochester. From this collection, we selected patients that underwent PV intervention to relieve stenosis secondary to FM. Eight patients were identified, with a mean age of 41 years (24–59 years). Five were men, and three were women. Three patients underwent balloon angioplasty alone, and five patients had stents placed. The majority of patients had acute hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement. More than one intervention was required in five patients, four patients had at least one episode of restenosis, and four patients died within four weeks of their first PV intervention. We describe the largest reported case series of catheter-based intervention for PV stenosis in FM. Although catheter-based therapy improved hemodynamics, short-term vascular patency, and patient symptoms, the rate of life-threatening complications, restenosis, and mortality associated with these interventions was found to be high. Despite these associated risks, catheter-based intervention is the only palliative option available to improve quality of life in severely symptomatic patients with PV stenosis and FM. Patients with PV stenosis and FM (especially those with bilateral disease) have an overall poor prognosis in spite of undergoing these interventions due to the progressive and recalcitrant nature of the disease. This underscores the need for further innovative approaches to manage this disease