Prespecified Risk Criteria Facilitate Adequate Discharge and Long‐Term Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background Despite the availability of guidelines for the performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), current treatment pathways vary between countries and institutions, which impact on the mean duration of postprocedure hospitalization. Methods and Results This was a prospective, multicenter registry of 502 patients to validate the appropriateness of discharge timing after transfemoral TAVI, using prespecified risk criteria from FAST‐TAVI (Feasibility and Safety of Early Discharge After Transfemoral [TF] Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), based on hospital events within 1‐year after discharge. The end point—a composite of all‐cause mortality, vascular access–related complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, cardiac rehospitalization, kidney failure, and major bleeding—was reached in 27.0% of patients (95% CI, 23.3–31.2) within 1 year after intervention; 7.5% (95% CI, 5.5–10.2) had in‐hospital complications before discharge and 19.6% (95% CI, 16.3–23.4) within 1 year after discharge. Overall mortality within 1 year after discharge was 7.3% and rates of cardiac rehospitalization 13.5%, permanent pacemaker implantation 4.2%, any stroke 1.8%, vascular‐access–related complications 0.7%, life‐threatening bleeding 0.7%, and kidney failure 0.4%. Composite events within 1 year after discharge were observed in 18.8% and 24.3% of patients with low risk of complications/early (≤3 days) discharge and high risk and discharged late (>3 days) (concordant discharge), respectively. Event rate in patients with discordant discharge was 14.3% with low risk but discharged late and increased to 50.0% in patients with high risk but discharged in ≤3 days. Conclusions The FAST‐TAVI risk assessment provides a tool for appropriate, risk‐based discharge that was validated with the 1‐year event rate after transfemoral TAVI. Registration URL: https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02404467

Impact of selected comorbidities on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis

Background: Contemporary data regarding the impact of comorbidities on the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. Methods Prospective registry of severe patients with AS across 23 centres in nine European countries. Results Of the 2171 patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD 27.3%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) = 2 of these). The decision to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR) was taken in a comparable proportion (67%, 72% and 69%, in patients with 0, 1 and >= 2 comorbidities;p=0.186). However, the decision for TAVI was more common with more comorbidities (35.4%, 54.0% and 57.0% for no, 1 and >= 2;p= 2 comorbidities than in those without (8.7%, 10.0% and 15.7%;p= 2 comorbidities (30.8 days) than in those without (35.7 days;p=0.012). Patients with reduced LVEF tended to be offered an AVR more frequently and with a shorter delay while patients with CKD were less frequently treated. Conclusions: Comorbidities in severe patients with AS affect the presentation and management of patients with severe AS. TAVI was offered more often than SAVR and performed within a shorter time period

Quality of care assessment and improvement in aortic stenosis - rationale and design of a multicentre registry (IMPULSE)

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a common, serious valve disease in which no effective medical therapy is available and, if not treated by intervention, has a 5-year survival of only 40-60%. Despite the availability of guidelines supporting the effective use of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to treat the majority of these patients, adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice is still unsatisfactory. Several recent studies have emphasised the necessity for improved communication between multidisciplinary teams, with the aim to ensure that severe AS patients receive appropriate treatment. IMPULSE is a prospective, multicentre, European registry designed to gather data over 12 months on the treatment decisions made by referring physicians for patients newly diagnosed with severe AS. Each patient has a follow-up of 3 months. The study will consist of two observational phases to assess the appropriateness and rate of referral based on current guidelines prior to and after an interventional phase aiming to determine whether a simple quality of care intervention improves patient management. Data will be analysed firstly, to determine the appropriateness of treatment decisions for the management of severe AS in current European clinical practice, and secondly, to evaluate the effectiveness of facilitated data relay from a designated echocardiography department nurse to the referring physician early after diagnosis in improving quality of care. Additionally, variables will be identified that are associated with inappropriate decision-making. Collectively, the aim will be to design a clinical pathway that will improve the timely management of patients with newly diagnosed severe AS

Rationale and design of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter heart valve replacement in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention (Randomized researcH in womEn all comers wIth Aortic stenosis [RHEIA] trial).

BACKGROUND Limited data suggest that transcatheter (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be more effective in female than male patients. To date, most evidence is derived from subgroup analyses of large trials, and a dedicated randomized trial evaluating whether there is a difference in outcomes between these interventions in women is warranted. The RHEIA trial will compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR with SAVR in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention, irrespective of surgical risk. METHODS/DESIGN The RHEIA trial is a prospective, randomized, controlled study that will enroll up to 440 patients across 35 sites in Europe. Women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, with any but prohibitive surgical risk status, will be randomized 1:1 to undergo aortic valve intervention with either transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra device or SAVR and followed up for 1 year. The objective is to determine whether TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR in this patient population and, if this is fulfilled whether TAVR is actually superior to SAVR. The primary safety/efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, and re-hospitalization (for valve or procedure-related symptoms or worsening congestive heart failure) at 1 year post-procedure. Other outcomes (assessed at 30 days and/or 1 year) include all-cause mortality; bleeding, vascular, cardiac, cerebrovascular and renal complications; aortic valve prosthesis and left ventricular function; cognitive function, health status, and quality of life. DISCUSSION The RHEIA study has been designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR specifically in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, irrespective of the level of surgical risk. The results will be the first to provide specific randomized evidence to guide treatment selection in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04160130

Modifiable risk factors for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: CONDUCT registry

Objective The onset of new conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still a relevant adverse event. The main objective of this registry was to identify modifiable procedural risk factors for an improved outcome (lower rate of PPI) after TAVI in patients at high risk of PPI. Methods Patients from four European centres receiving a balloon-expandable TAVI (Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra) and considered at high risk of PPI (pre-existing conduction disturbance, heavily calcified left ventricular outflow tract or short membranous septum) were prospectively enrolled into registry. Results A total of 300 patients were included: 42 (14.0%) required PPI after TAVI and 258 (86.0%) did not. Patients with PPI had a longer intensive care unit plus intermediate care stay (65.7 vs 16.3 hours, p<0.001), general ward care stay (6.9 vs 5.3 days, p=0.004) and later discharge (8.6 vs 5.0 days, p<0.001). Of the baseline variables, only pre-existing right bundle branch block at baseline (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.5 to 18.1) was significantly associated with PPI in the multivariable analysis. Among procedure-related variables, oversizing had the highest impact on the rate of PPI: higher than manufacturer-recommended sizing, mean area oversizing as well as the use of the 29 mm valve (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.4 to 8.5, p=0.008) all were significantly associated with PPI. Rates were higher with the SAPIEN 3 (16.1%) vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra (8.5%), although not statistically significant but potentially associated with valve sizing. Implantation depth and postdelivery balloon dilatation also tended to affect PPI rates but without a statistical significance. Conclusion Valve oversizing is a strong procedure-related risk factor for PPI following TAVI. The clinical impact of the valve type (SAPIEN 3), implantation depth, and postdelivery balloon dilatation did not reach significance and may reflect already refined procedures in the participating centres, giving attention to these avoidable risk factors. Trial registration number NCT03497611

Quality of care assessment and improvement in aortic stenosis - rationale and design of a multicentre registry (IMPULSE)

Background: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a common, serious valve disease in which no effective medical therapy is available and, if not treated by intervention, has a 5-year survival of only 40-60%. Despite the availability of guidelines supporting the effective use of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to treat the majority of these patients, adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice is still unsatisfactory. Several recent studies have emphasised the necessity for improved communication between multidisciplinary teams, with the aim to ensure that severe AS patients receive appropriate treatment. Methods/design: IMPULSE is a prospective, multicentre, European registry designed to gather data over 12 months on the treatment decisions made by referring physicians for patients newly diagnosed with severe AS. Each patient has a follow-up of 3 months. The study will consist of two observational phases to assess the appropriateness and rate of referral based on current guidelines prior to and after an interventional phase aiming to determine whether a simple quality of care intervention improves patient management. Discussion: Data will be analysed firstly, to determine the appropriateness of treatment decisions for the management of severe AS in current European clinical practice, and secondly, to evaluate the effectiveness of facilitated data relay from a designated echocardiography department nurse to the referring physician early after diagnosis in improving quality of care. Additionally, variables will be identified that are associated with inappropriate decision-making. Collectively, the aim will be to design a clinical pathway that will improve the timely management of patients with newly diagnosed severe AS

Balloon-expandable transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without predilation of the aortic valve: results of a multicentre registry

OBJECTIVES: To assess safety and efficacy of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) in the absence of predilation using balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). Predilation of the stenosed valve using BAV is a routine step in TA-TAVI; however, evidence supporting its clinical value is lacking, and several studies have linked it with higher complication rates.& para;& para;METHODS: A prospective, two-armed, multicentre registry (EASE-IT TA) to gather data on patients undergoing TA-TAVI with or without BAV, using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve was designed. The primary evaluation criterion was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury and pacemaker implantation [per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2)] within 30 days after TAVI.& para;& para;RESULTS: A total of 198 subjects underwent TA TAVI, 61 with and 137 without BAV. Patient characteristics were comparable at baseline (mean +/- SD: age 80.3 +/- 5.7 years; logistic EuroSCORE 20.2 +/- 12.6). Similar reductions in peak and mean transvalvular gradients were observed post-procedurally. There was a significant reduction of fluoroscopy time without BAV (4.7 vs 7.9 min; P = 0.039) and significantly decreased odds of catecholamine administration (17.5% vs 32.8%; P = 0.017). A decreased odds of the primary evaluation criterion in patients without BAV after 30 days (adjusted odds ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.34-1.82) and the same composite end-point after 6 months (adjusted odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.47) were not significant even after multivariable adjustment.& para;& para;CONCLUSIONS: TA-TAVI without BAV appears to be at least equal to its conventional counterpart in terms of efficacy and may offer advantages in terms of safety. Thus, there appears to be little justification for maintaining the BAV step in TA-TAVI for many patients

Quality of Life Measures in Aortic Stenosis Research: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND Elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS) not only have a reduced life expectancy but also a reduced quality of life (QoL). The benefits of an AS intervention may be considered a balance between a good QoL and a reasonably extended life. However, the different questionnaires being used to determine the QoL were generally not developed for the specific situation of patients with AS and come with strengths and considerable weaknesses. The objective of this article was to provide an overview of the available QoL instruments in AS research, describe their strengths and weaknesses, and provide our assessment of the utility of the available scoring instruments for QoL measurements in AS. SUMMARY We identified and reviewed the following instruments that are used in AS research: Short Form Health Survey (SF-36/SF-12), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS), the HeartQoL, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), the MacNew Questionnaire, and the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ). KEY MESSAGES There is no standardized assessment of QoL in patients with AS. Many different questionnaires are being used, but they are rarely specific for AS. There is a need for AS-specific research into the QoL of patients as life prolongation may compete for an improved QoL in this elderly patient group