Inadequacy of Existing Clinical Prediction Models for Predicting Mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background: The performance of emerging transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical prediction models (CPMs) in national TAVI cohorts distinct from those where they have been derived is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the performance of the German Aortic Valve, FRANCE-2, OBSERVANT and American College of Cardiology (ACC) TAVI CPMs compared with the performance of historic cardiac CPMs such as the EuroSCORE and STS-PROM, in a large national TAVI registry. Methods: The calibration and discrimination of each CPM were analyzed in 6676 patients from the UK TAVI registry, as a whole cohort and across several subgroups. Strata included gender, diabetes status, access route, and valve type. Furthermore, the amount of agreement in risk classification between each of the considered CPMs was analyzed at an individual patient level. Results: The observed 30-day mortality rate was 5.4%. In the whole cohort, the majority of CPMs over-estimated the risk of 30-day mortality, although the mean ACC score (5.2%) approximately matched the observed mortality rate. The areas under ROC curve were between 0.57 for OBSERVANT and 0.64 for ACC. Risk classification agreement was low across all models, with Fleiss's kappa values between 0.17 and 0.50. Conclusions: Although the FRANCE-2 and ACC models outperformed all other CPMs, the performance of current TAVI-CPMs was low when applied to an independent cohort of TAVI patients. Hence, TAVI specific CPMs need to be derived outside populations previously used for model derivation, either by adapting existing CPMs or developing new risk scores in large national registries

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis: the cost-effectiveness case for inoperable patients in the United Kingdom

Aortic stenosis (AS) is caused by age-related calcific degeneration of the aortic valve (1). Initially, cases are asymptomatic but, from the point that symptoms first develop, there is rapid progression and if left untreated survival estimates are low (2–3 years) (1). Therefore, managing AS effectively and efficiently is a priority for health systems with increasing healthcare costs and longer life expectancy

Follow-up care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A pilot study of survivors and families’ experiences and recommendations

Background and objectives Cognitive and physical difficulties are common in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA); both survivors and close family members are also at risk of developing mood disorders. In the UK, dedicated follow-up pathways for OHCA survivors and their family are lacking. A cohort of survivors and family members were surveyed regarding their experience of post-discharge care and their recommended improvements. Method 123 OHCA survivors and 39 family members completed questionnaires during an educational event or later online. Questions addressed both the actual follow-up offered and the perceived requirements for optimal follow-up from the patient and family perspective, including consideration of timing, professionals involved, involvement of family members and areas they felt should be covered. Results Outpatient follow-up was commonly arranged after OHCA (77%). This was most often conducted by a cardiologist alone (80%) but survivors suggested that other professionals should also be involved (e.g. psychologist/counsellor, 64%). Topics recommended for consideration included cardiac arrest-related issues (heart disease; cause of arrest) mental fatigue/sleep disturbance, cognitive problems, emotional problems and daily activities. Most survivors advocated an early review (<1month; 61%). Most family members reported some psychological difficulties (95%); many of them (95%) advocated a dedicated follow-up appointment for family members of survivors. Conclusions The majority of OHCA survivors advocated an early follow-up following hospital discharge and a holistic, multidimensional assessment of arrest sequelae. These results suggest that current OHCA follow-up often fails to address patient-centred issues and to provide access to professionals deemed important by survivors and family members

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. CONCLUSION: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes

Home use of automated external defibrillators for sudden cardiac arrest

Background The most common location of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the home, a situation in which emergency medical services are challenged to provide timely care. Consequently, home use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) might offer an opportunity to improve survival for patients at risk. Methods We randomly assigned 7001 patients with previous anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to receive one of two responses to sudden cardiac arrest occurring at home: either the control response (calling emergency medical services and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR]) or the use of an AED, followed by calling emergency medical services and performing CPR. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Results The median age of the patients was 62 years; 17% were women. The median follow-up was 37.3 months. Overall, 450 patients died: 228 of 3506 patients (6.5%) in the control group and 222 of 3495 patients (6.4%) in the AED group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.17; P=0.77). Mortality did not differ significantly in major prespecified subgroups. Only 160 deaths (35.6%) were considered to be from sudden cardiac arrest from tachyarrhythmia. Of these deaths, 117 occurred at home; 58 at-home events were witnessed. AEDs were used in 32 patients. Of these patients, 14 received an appropriate shock, and 4 survived to hospital discharge. There were no documented inappropriate shocks. Conclusions For survivors of anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator, access to a home AED did not significantly improve overall survival, as compared with reliance on conventional resuscitation methods

Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Tria

Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59-1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55-1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41-2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52-0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37-0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59-2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57-2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36-0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23-0.72]). Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated. Registration: URL: Https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923