Health-related quality-of-life after transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Is Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Effective in Improving Quality of Life?: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis (AS) without surgical intervention is associated with morbidity and mortality and is the most common valvular disease in the western world. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive surgical option that has become a common treatment for people unable to undergo open aortic valve replacement; despite the increase in TAVI offerings in the last decade, patient quality of life (QoL) outcomes postoperatively are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to determine whether TAVI is effective in improving QoL.

METHOD

A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted, and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019122753). MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for studies published between 2008 and 2021. Search terms included "transcatheter aortic valve replacement" and "quality of life" and their synonyms. Included studies were evaluated, dependent on study design, using either the Risk of Bias-2 or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Seventy studies were included in the review.

RESULTS

Authors of the studies used a wide variety of QoL assessment instruments and follow-up durations; authors of most studies identified an improvement in QoL, and a small number identified a decline in QoL or no change from baseline.

CONCLUSION

Although authors of the vast majority of studies identified an improvement in QoL, there was very little consistency in instrument choice or follow-up duration; this made analysis and comparison difficult. A consistent approach to measuring QoL for patients who undergo TAVI is needed to enable comparison of outcomes. A richer, more nuanced understanding of QoL outcomes after TAVI could help clinicians support patient decision making and evaluate outcomes.

The Effect of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on Arterial Stiffness: Does the Valve Type Matter?

Background: Despite the increasing use of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, many patients still require surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Assessing arterial properties in patients undergoing SAVR for aortic valve stenosis can be challenging, and the existing evidence is inconclusive. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of SAVR on vascular stiffness and the quality of life, as well as the different effects of valve type on arterial properties. Methods: We included 60 patients (mean age 70.25 ± 8.76 years, 65% men) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR. Arterial stiffness (cfPWV, baPWV) and vascular parameters (AIx@75, central pressures, SEVR) were measured at baseline, pre-discharge, and 1-year post-operation. The QOL was assessed using the generic questionnaire-short-form health survey 36 (SF-36) pre-operatively and at 1 year. Results: Post-SAVR, cfPWV increased immediately (7.67 ± 1.70 m/s vs. 8.27 ± 1.92 m/s, p = 0.009) and persisted at 1 year (8.27 ± 1.92 m/s vs. 9.29 ± 2.59 m/s, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, baPWV (n = 55) increased acutely (1633 ± 429 cm/s vs. 2014 ± 606 cm/s, p < 0.001) and remained elevated at 1 year (1633 ± 429 cm/s vs. 1867 ± 408 cm/s, p < 0.001). Acute decrease in Alx@75 (31.16 ± 10% vs. 22.48 ± 13%, p < 0.001) reversed at 1 year (31.16 ± 10% vs. 30.98 ± 9%, p = 0.71). SEVR improved (136.1 ± 30.4% vs. 149.2 ± 32.7%, p = 0.01) and persisted at 1 year (136.1 ± 30.4% vs. 147.5 ± 30.4%, p = 0.01). SV had a greater cfPWV increase at 1 year (p = 0.049). The QOL improved irrespective of arterial stiffness changes. Conclusions: After SAVR, arterial stiffness demonstrates a persistent increase at 1-year, with valve type having a slight influence on the outcomes. These findings remain consistent despite the perceived QOL.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138171.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With a Focus on Outcomes by Sex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Women at increased surgical risk have been shown to have better outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as compared to surgical valve replacement (SAVR). With the scope of TAVI moving into low-surgical risk patients, we aimed to update the current literature to include the new low-risk randomised controlled trial (RCT) data in investigating outcomes by sex.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists for relevant RCTs comparing TAVI to SAVR published prior to 4 May 2020. Data extraction was performed by two independent authors and included trial design details, baseline characteristics and outcome data stratified by sex. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Quantitative synthesis of pooled data was performed using Mantel-Haenszel fixed or random effects model. Q-statistic and the I² test were used for assessment of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Our search yielded eight RCTs included in the final quantitative synthesis. The overall pooled cohort was 8,040, of whom 41.4% were female. Women had significantly lower rates of one-year all-cause mortality (12.2% vs 17.7%, pooled OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86) and one-year composite endpoint (9.7% vs 12.4%, pooled OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92) with TAVI as compared to SAVR. The selective mortality benefit with TAVI over SAVR in women did not persist to 5 years (pooled HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87-1.17). At 30 days, women demonstrated lower rates of major bleeding and acute kidney injury following TAVI compared to SAVR. For men, these outcomes were similar regardless of type of intervention. Both sexes were at increased risk of major vascular complications with TAVI as compared to SAVR, however women demonstrated nearly double the odds of major vascular complication with TAVI compared to men.

CONCLUSION

Our updated meta-analysis demonstrates that at one-year women undergoing TAVI have significantly lower mortality and better safety outcomes compared to those undergoing SAVR. These benefits are not seen in men. In the new low-risk era, these results are ever more important for guiding appropriate patient selection.

Alternate Access for TAVI: Stay Clear of the Chest

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently performed through an alternative access in 15% of patients. The transapical access is progressively being abandoned as a result of its invasiveness and poor outcomes. Existing data does not allow TAVI operators to favour one access over another - between transcarotid, trans-subclavian and transaortic - because all have specific strengths and weaknesses. The percutaneous trans-subclavian access might become the main surgery-free alternative access, although further research is needed regarding its safety. Moreover, the difficult learning curve might compromise its adoption. The transcaval access is at an experimental stage and requires the development of dedicated cavo-aortic crossing techniques and closure devices.