Decision making in treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a survey study in Dutch heart centres.

AIM: To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL]. METHODS: A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment. RESULTS: All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients' functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres 'often to always' do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are 'sometimes to regularly' available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed 'sometimes to regularly' in heart team meetings (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.

Quality of life among patients with severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The disease burden of patients with severe aortic stenosis is not often explored, while the incidence is increasing and many patients who have an indication for aortic valve replacement are not referred for surgery. We studied the quality of life of 191 patients with severe aortic stenosis, hypothesising that symptomatic patients have a far worse quality of life than the general population, which could enforce the indication for surgery. METHODS: The SF-36v2 Health Survey was completed by 191 consecutive patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. RESULTS: Asymptomatic patients (n = 59) had health scores comparable with the general Dutch population but symptomatic patients (n = 132) scored significantly lower across different age categories. Physical functioning, general health and vitality were impaired, as well as social functioning and emotional well-being. There was no relation between degree of stenosis and physical or mental health scores. CONCLUSIONS: Both physical and emotional problems have a major impact on normal daily life and social functioning of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, regardless of age. If the aortic stenosis is above the 'severe' threshold, the degree of stenosis does not predict disease burden. These results encourage to reconsider a conservative approach in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. Using the SF-36v2 Health Survey together with this study, an individual patient's quality of life profile can be assessed and compared with the patient group or with the general population. This can assist in decision making for the individual patient.

The effect of aortic valve replacement on quality of life in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Although symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis have a high disease burden and guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement, many are treated conservatively. This study describes to what extent quality of life is changed by aortic valve replacement relative to conservative treatment. METHODS: This observational study followed 132 symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who were subjected to an SF-36v2TM Health Survey. RESULTS: At baseline 84 patients were treated conservatively, 48 were referred for aortic valve replacement. In the conservatively treated group 15 patients died during a mean follow-up of 18 months (Kaplan-Meier survival was 85 % and 72 % at one and 2 years respectively) and 22 patients crossed over to the surgical group. Of the resulting 70 patients in the surgical group 3 patients died during a mean follow-up of 11 months (survival 95 % at 1 year). Physical functioning, vitality and general health improved significantly 1 year after aortic valve replacement. In conservatively treated patients physical quality of life deteriorated over time while general health, vitality and social functioning showed a declining trend. Mental health remained stable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement improves physical quality of life, general health and vitality in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Besides having a low life expectancy, conservatively treated patients experience deterioration of physical quality of life. Health surveys such as the SF-36v2TM can be valuable tools in monitoring the burden of disease for an individual patient and offer additional help in treatment decisions.

Clinical course of patients diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis in the Rotterdam area: insights from the AVARIJN study.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the clinical course of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and identify factors associated with treatment selection and patient outcome. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with severe AS in the Rotterdam area were included between June 2006 and May 2009. Patient characteristics, echocardiogram, brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and treatment strategy were assessed at baseline, and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Endpoints were aortic valve replacement (AVR) / transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and death. RESULTS: The study population comprised 191 patients, 132 were symptomatic and 59 asymptomatic at study entry. Two-year cumulative survival of symptomatic patients was 89.8 % (95 % CI 79.8-95.0 %) after AVR/TAVI and 72.6 % (95 % CI 59.7-82.0 %) with conservative treatment. Two-year cumulative survival of asymptomatic patients was 91.5 % (95 % CI 80.8-96.4 %). Two-year cumulative incidence of AVR/TAVI was 55.9 % (95 % CI 47.5-63.5 %) in symptomatic patients. Sixty-eight percent of asymptomatic patients developed symptoms, median time to symptoms was 13 months; AVR/TAVI cumulative incidence was 38.3 % (95 % CI 23.1-53.3 %). Elderly symptomatic patients with multiple comorbidities were more likely to receive conservative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary Dutch practice many symptomatic patients do not receive invasive treatment of severe AS. Two-thirds of asymptomatic patients develop symptoms within 2 years, illustrating the progressive nature of severe AS. Treatment optimisation may be achieved through careful individualised assessment in a multidisciplinary setting.