Early and late changes in quality of life following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the transfemoral and transapical approaches

Multiparametric Outcome Assessment After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-A Systematic Review

Backround/Objectives: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most commonly acquired valvular disorder. Patient risk stratification and the development of an accurate and reliable tool are crucial in identifying suitable candidates for TAVI. The present review summarized the current state of knowledge on the influence of selected factors on the outcomes and course of patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: The inclusion criteria for the present systematic review were as follows: (1) studies indexed in the medical databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus; (2) full-text articles available in English; (3) papers published between 2013 and 2023; and (4) addressing the topic of assessing the impact of factors on the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI. This review used PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Results: One hundred and thirty-two studies were eligible for this review. The available studies showed an association of psychosocial and socioeconomic factors, valve parameters, comorbidities, clinical factors, treatment-related factors, biomarkers, and treatment methods with the outcomes of patients with AS undergoing TAVI. Conclusions: Given the conflicting results obtained regarding the impact of right ventricular dysfunction, paravalvular leaks, and treatment method on the mortality of patients undergoing aortic valve implantation, further research in these areas is needed. In view of the researchers' differing views on some of the factors affecting patient outcomes after TAVI, further analysis is needed to develop a new tool for assessing predictive outcomes in AS patients. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024612752).

A streamlined pathway for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the BENCHMARK study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is significant potential to streamline the clinical pathway for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing BENCHMARK best practices on the efficiency and safety of TAVI in 28 sites in 7 European countries.

METHODS

This was a study of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI with balloon-expandable valves before and after implementation of BENCHMARK best practices. Principal objectives were to reduce hospital length of stay (LoS) and duration of intensive care stay. Secondary objective was to document patient safety.

RESULTS

Between January 2020 and March 2023, 897 patients were documented prior to and 1491 patients after the implementation of BENCHMARK practices. Patient characteristics were consistent with a known older TAVI population and only minor differences. Mean LoS was reduced from 7.7 ± 7.0 to 5.8 ± 5.6 days (median 6 vs. 4 days; P < .001). Duration of intensive care was reduced from 1.8 to 1.3 days (median 1.1 vs. 0.9 days; P < .001). Adoption of peri-procedure best practices led to increased use of local anaesthesia (96.1% vs. 84.3%; P < .001) and decreased procedure (median 47 vs. 60 min; P < .001) and intervention times (85 vs. 95 min; P < .001). Thirty-day patient safety did not appear to be compromised with no differences in all-cause mortality (0.6% in both groups combined), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (1.4%), life-threatening bleeding (1.3%), stage 2/3 acute kidney injury (0.7%), and valve-related readmission (1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Broad implementation of BENCHMARK practices contributes to improving efficiency of TAVI pathway reducing LoS and costs without compromising patient safety.

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.

Trial protocol for the validation of the 'Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life (TASQ) Questionnaire' in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): the TASQ registry

Background

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have a reduced life expectancy and quality of life (QoL), owing to advanced age and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Currently, there is no AS-specific QoL measurement tool, which prevents an accurate assessment of how this chronic condition and its treatment affect patients. The Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) was developed in order to address this deficiency.

Methods

The present trial protocol was designed to enable validation of the TASQ, which has been produced in five languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish) to increase usability. Patients with severe AS who are undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) will be asked to complete the TASQ and, for comparative purposes, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the general health-related QoL Short Form-12 questionnaire. The questionnaires will be completed prior to the intervention, at discharge, as well as at 30 days and 3 months follow-up. A total of 290 patients will be recruited across one Canadian and nine European centres. Overall, the protocol validation aims to include 120 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI (TF-TAVI), 120 undergoing SAVR and up to 50 being treated medically. The primary objective of the registry is to validate the TASQ in five different languages. The secondary objective is to assess the utility of the TASQ for assessing differences in QoL outcome between patients undergoing TF-TAVI, SAVR or medical management for their AS.

Discussion

Validation and roll-out of the TASQ will enable clinicians to capture an accurate assessment of how AS and its management affects the QoL of patients and will help them to determine the most appropriate treatment strategy for individual patients.

Trial registration number

NCT03186339.

Health-related quality of life following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transaortic, transfemoral approaches and surgical aortic valve replacement-a single-center study

Objective

To evaluate short- and long-term changes in quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to assess differences in patient QoL when using the TAVI transaortic (TAVI TAo) approach compared with the transfemoral approach (TAVI TF) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

Ninety-seven patients were assessed. Thirty-two patients underwent TAVI TAo, 31 underwent TAVI TF and 34 patients underwent SAVR. QoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at baseline, after one month and one year.

Results

Mean patient age was 80 years (range, 61–92 years) and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 12.45% (range, 1.39%–78.98%). Declared health state at baseline was significantly lower in TAVI TF (P < 0.001) and after one month there were no differences between the three groups (P = 0.99). After one year, SAVR patient results of the EQ-5D-3L index value were lower in comparison to both TAVI patient groups (P < 0.05). The analysis also showed significant differences between the results of EQ-5D-3L index value over the one month and one year follow-up (TAVI TAo, P < 0.001; TAVI TF, P < 0.05; SAVR, P < 0.05). In all groups, the values significantly increased after one-month and one-year of follow-up in comparison to baseline value. Significant differences were also demonstrated between Visual Analogue Scale values (VAS).

Conclusions

A significant improvement in QoL was observed in all three patient groups. Regardless of the TAVI approach, EQ-5D-3L and VAS values were significantly increased after one-month and one-year follow up; the SAVR patients however, reported lower health status when compared to the TAVI patients.

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

PURPOSE

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) is a well-established treatment for aortic valve stenosis in high-risk patients and indications have been continuously expanding to also include intermediate-risk patients. However, in low-risk patients, experiences are still sparse and although clinical outcomes have been shown favorable results, HRQoL has remained unexplored. The aim of this report was to describe the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in low-risk patients randomized to TA-TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized trial, patients with aortic valve stenosis were randomized to either TA-TAVI or SAVR. TA-TAVI was performed through a mini thoracotomy with the introduction of prosthesis via the apex of the heart and antegradely advancement over the pre-dilated native valve. SAVR was performed during cardiopulmonary bypass with resection of the native valve and replacement with a prosthesis valve through a median sternotomy. Afterwards, patients were followed yearly with echocardiography and HRQoL assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included; 29 patients for TA-TAVI and 29 patients for SAVR. The only difference in HRQoL was found in the physical component summary after 1 year; 44 ± 9 in the TA-TAVI group compared with 36 ± 9 in the SAVR group, p = .03. There were no differences in any of the remaining timepoints in neither physical nor mental component summary, p = .19 and p = .98, respectively, and there were no differences in survival during the 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing TA-TAVI, no differences appeared in HRQoL compared with SAVR during a 5-year follow-up period.

Twelve-Month Quality of Life Improvement and All-Cause Mortality in Elderly Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Purpose

Restoration of quality of life (QoL) and improvement of clinical outcomes is crucial in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to evaluate changes in QoL and all-cause mortality 12 months after TAVI.

Methods

A total of 101 patients who underwent TAVI were included. Patients were followed for 12 months. QoL was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6 and 12 months after TAVI using EQ-5D-3L with a visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

Patients who reported some problems with mobility at baseline showed better mobility after 12 months (p = 0.001). On the other hand, those who reported issues with self-care, usual activity or pain did not show significant improvement (p = 0.41; p = 0.12; p = 0.27, respectively). Patients reporting anxiety at baseline improved 12 months later (p = 0.003). VAS score showed an incremental increase during follow-up (p<0.001). Transfemoral access was associated with higher VAS score values after 1 month (median (IQR): 65.0 (50.0–75.0) vs. 54.0 (50.0–60.0); p = 0.019) but not after 12 months (70.0 (62.5–80.0) vs. 67.5 (55.0–70.0); p = 0.07) as compared to non-transfemoral access. In multivariable regression analysis, only age and the presence of coronary chronic total occlusion were independently associated with VAS score at 12 months. In-hospital, 1-, 6- and 12-month mortality rates were 6.9%, 10.9%, 15.8 and 17.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

TAVI provides improved QoL with relatively good clinical outcomes. However, not all components of QoL may be improved. Patients treated with transfemoral access might have better QoL than those who had non-transfemoral access, especially early after TAVI.

Temporal Trends in Quality of Life Outcomes After Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) Trial Substudy

BACKGROUND

In the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial (RCT), which represented the first exposure to transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) for many clinical sites, high-risk patients undergoing TA-TAVR derived similar health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). With increasing experience, it is possible that HRQoL outcomes of TA-TAVR may have improved.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated HRQoL outcomes at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups among 875 patients undergoing TA-TAVR in the PARTNER nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry and compared these outcomes with those of the TA-TAVR and SAVR patients in the PARTNER RCT. HRQoL was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12, and the EuroQoL-5D, with the KCCQ overall summary score serving as the primary end point. The NRCA TA-TAVR and RCT TA-TAVR and SAVR groups were generally similar. The primary outcome, the KCCQ summary score, did not differ between the NRCA TA-TAVR and the RCT TA-TAVR group at any follow-up timepoints, although there were small differences in favor of the NRCA cohort on several KCCQ subscales at 1 month. There were no significant differences in follow-up HRQOL between the NRCA-TAVR and the RCT SAVR cohorts on the KCCQ overall summary scale or any of the disease-specific or generic subscales.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite greater experience with TA-TAVR in the NRCA registry, HRQoL outcomes remained similar to those of TA-TAVR in the original RCT cohort and no better than those with SAVR. These findings have important implications for patient selection for TAVR when transfemoral access is not an option.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.