Dataset Information

Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in a "Real World" Population: Insights From a Prospective Canadian Database.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Documentation of quality of life (QOL) of patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a Canadian Cardiovascular Society quality indicator. National results have not been reported to date.

Methods

We conducted an observational cohort study including all TAVI patients, irrespective of surgical risk, treated between January 2016 and June 2019 as documented in the British Columbia TAVI Registry. QOL was measured at baseline, 30 days, and 1 year, using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score (KCCQ-OS). We used linear regression modelling to examine factors associated with 30-day changes in QOL, logistic regression modelling to identify predictors of sustaining a poor outcome, and Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk estimates of the effect of QOL on 1-year mortality.

Results

The cohort included 1706 patients (742 women [43.5%]); median age 83 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 77, 86). Median (IQR) baseline KCCQ-OS was 45 (28.2, 67), indicating severe impairment. Patients alive at 1 year (91.3%) reported a mean improvement of 24.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.7-25.6) points in the KCCQ-OS at 30 days, which was sustained at 1 year (25.3; 95% CI, 23.8, 26.8). Older age, lower baseline health status, lower aortic valve gradient, lower hemoglobin, atrial fibrillation, and non-transfemoral access were associated with worse 30-day QOL. At 1 year, 65% of patients had a favorable outcome; additional risk factors for 1-year mortality (8.7%) were male sex, New York Heart Association Class IV, severe pulmonary and renal disease, diabetes, and in-patient status.

Conclusions

TAVI is associated with significant early improvement in QOL, which is sustained at 1 year. The inclusion of QOL can support treatment decisions and patient-centred evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Lauck SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413231 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is criticized by some as an expensive treatment in super-elder patients with limited life expectancy. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by TAVI in comparison with conservative management in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) in real clinical practice, which would be important in the decision making for TAVI. METHODS:We combined two independent registries, namely CURRENT AS and K-TAVI registries. CURRENT AS was a multicenter registry enrolling 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS irrespective to treatment modalities between January 2003 and December 2011. K-TAVI was a multicenter, prospective registry including 449 consecutive patients with severe AS, who underwent TAVI with SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valves between October 2013 and June 2016. In these 2 registries, 449 patients received TAVI and 894 patients were managed with conservative strategy. We conducted propensity score matching and finally obtained a cohort of 556 patients (278 patients for each group) for the analysis. The primary outcome measures were all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization at 2-year. RESULTS:The cumulative 2-year incidences of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the TAVI group than in the conservative group (16.8% versus 36.6%, P<0.001, and 10.7% versus 37.2%, P<0.001). After adjusting the residual confounders, TAVI reduced the risks of all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95%CI, 0.32-0.69; P = 0.0001) and HF hospitalizations (HR, 0.25; 95%CI, 0.16-0.40; P<0.0001) compared with conservative strategy. There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of non-cardiovascular death between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS:TAVI in the early Japanese experience was associated with striking risk reduction for all-cause death as well as HF hospitalization as compared with the historical cohort of patients with severe AS who were managed conservatively just before introduction of TAVI in Japan.

Project description:ObjectivesTo date the reported outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are mainly in the settings of trials comparing it with evolving transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We set out to examine characteristics and outcomes in people who underwent SAVR reflecting a national cohort and therefore 'real-world' practice.DesignRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive people who underwent SAVR with or without coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery between April 2013 and March 2018 in the UK. This included elective, urgent and emergency operations. Participants' demographics, preoperative risk factors, operative data, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications and effect of the addition of CABG to SAVR were analysed.Setting27 (90%) tertiary cardiac surgical centres in the UK submitted their data for analysis.Participants31 277 people with AVR were identified. 19 670 (62.9%) had only SAVR and 11 607 (37.1%) had AVR+CABG.ResultsIn-hospital mortality for isolated SAVR was 1.9% (95% CI 1.6% to 2.1%) and was 2.4% for AVR+CABG. Mortality by age category for SAVR only were: <60 years=2.0%, 60-75 years=1.5%, >75 years=2.2%. For SAVR+CABG these were; 2.2%, 1.8% and 3.1%. For different categories of EuroSCORE, mortality for SAVR in low risk people was 1.3%, in intermediate risk 1% and for high risk 3.9%. 74.3% of the operations were elective, 24% urgent and 1.7% emergency/salvage. The incidences of resternotomy for bleeding and stroke were 3.9% and 1.1%, respectively. Multivariable analyses provided no evidence that concomitant CABG influenced outcome. However, urgency of the operation, poor ventricular function, higher EuroSCORE and longer cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times adversely affected outcomes.ConclusionsSurgical SAVR±CABG has low mortality risk and a low level of complications in the UK in people of all ages and risk factors. These results should inform consideration of treatment options in people with aortic valve disease.