Eligibility and Potential Benefit of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair in a Contemporary Cohort With Heart Failure: Evidence From a Large Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

Background: The eligibility and potential benefit of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy to treat moderate-severe or severe secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) has not been reported in a contemporary heart failure (HF) population. Methods: Eligibility for TEER based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling: (1) HF symptoms, (2) moderate-severe or severe MR, (3) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 20% to 50%, (4) left ventricular end-systolic dimension 7.0 cm, and (5) receiving GDMT (blocker + angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker). The proportion (%) of patients eligible for TEER. The hypothetical number needed to treat to prevent or postpone adverse outcomes was estimated using relative risk reductions from published hazard ratios in the registration trial and the observed event rates. Results: We identified 50,841 adults with HF and known LVEF. After applying FDA criteria, 2461 patients (4.8%) were considered eligible for transcatheter mitral valve replacement (FDA+), with the vast majority of patients excluded (FDA-) based on a lack of clinically significant MR (N = 47,279). FDA+ patients had higher natriuretic peptide levels and were more likely to have a prior HF hospitalization compared to FDA- patients. Although FDA+ patients had a more dilated left ventricle and lower LVEF, median (25th-75th) left ventricular end-systolic dimension (cm) was low at 4.4 (3.7-5.1) and only 30.8% had severely reduced LVEF. FDA+ patients were at higher risk of HF-related morbidity and mortality. The estimated number needed to treat to potentially prevent or postpone all-cause hospitalization was 4.4, 8.8 for HF hospitalization, and 5.3 for all-cause death at 24 months in FDA+ patients. Conclusions: There is a low prevalence of TEER eligibility based on FDA criteria primarily due to absence of moderate-severe or severe MR. FDA+ patients are a high acuity population and may potentially derive a robust clinical benefit from TEER based on pivotal studies. Additional research is necessary to validate the scope of eligibility and comparative effectiveness of TEER in real-world populations.

Outcomes of Adults with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Urgent or Emergent vs. Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Within an Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be used to urgently or emergently treat severe aortic stenosis, but outcomes for this high-risk population have not been well-characterized. We sought to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing urgent or emergent vs. elective TAVR. Methods: We identified all adults who received TAVR for primary aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Elective or urgent/emergent procedure status was based on standard Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions. Data were obtained from electronic health records, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, and state/national reporting databases. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were performed. Results: Among 1564 eligible adults that underwent TAVR, 81 (5.2%) were classified as urgent/emergent. These patients were more likely to have heart failure (63.0% vs. 47.4%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (21.0% vs. 11.8%), or a prior aortic valve balloon valvuloplasty (13.6% vs. 5.0%) and experienced higher unadjusted rates of 30-day and 1-year morbidity and mortality. Urgent/emergent TAVR status was independently associated with non-improved quality of life at 30-days (hazard ratio, 4.87; p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury within 1-year post-TAVR (hazard ratio, 2.11; p = 0.01). There was not a significant difference in adjusted 1-year mortality with urgent/emergent TAVR. Conclusions: Urgent/emergent TAVR status was uncommon and associated with high-risk clinical features and higher unadjusted rates of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Procedure status may be useful to identify patients less likely to experience significant short term improvement in health-related quality of life post-TAVR.

Temporal trends in the prevalence and severity of aortic stenosis within a contemporary and diverse community-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Data on the epidemiology of aortic stenosis (AS) are primarily derived from single center experiences and administrative claims data that do not delineate by degree of disease severity. METHODS: An observational cohort study of adults with echocardiographic AS was conducted January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2019 at an integrated health system. The presence/grade of AS was based on physician interpretation of echocardiograms. RESULTS: A total of 66,992 echocardiogram reports for 37,228 individuals were identified. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 77.5 ± 10.5, 50.5% (N = 18,816) were women, and 67.2% (N = 25,016) were non-Hispanic whites. The age-standardized AS prevalence increased from 589 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 580-598) to 754 (95% CI 744-764) cases per 100,000 during the study period. The age-standardized AS prevalences were similar in magnitude among non-Hispanic whites (820, 95% CI 806-834), non-Hispanic blacks (728, 95% CI 687-769), and Hispanics (789, 95% CI 759-819) and substantially lower for Asian/Pacific Islanders (511, 95% CI 489-533). Finally, the distribution of AS by degree of severity remained relatively unchanged over time. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The population prevalence of AS has grown considerably over a short timeframe although the distribution of AS severity has remained stable.

Predicting short-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The approved use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis has expanded substantially over time. However, gaps remain with respect to accurately delineating risk for poor clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Our objective was to develop prediction models for 30-day clinical and patient-centered outcomes after TAVR within a large, diverse community-based population. METHODS: We identified all adults who underwent TAVR between 2013-2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated healthcare delivery system, and were monitored for the following 30-day outcomes: all-cause death, improvement in quality of life, all-cause hospitalizations, all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations, and HF-related ED visits. We developed prediction models using gradient boosting machines using linked demographic, clinical and other data from the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) TVT Registry and electronic health records. We evaluated model performance using area under the curve (AUC) for model discrimination and associated calibration plots. We also evaluated the association of individual predictors with outcomes using logistic regression for quality of life and Cox proportional hazards regression for all other outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 1,565 eligible patients who received TAVR. The risks of adverse 30-day post-TAVR outcomes ranged from 1.3% (HF hospitalizations) to 15.3% (all-cause ED visits). In models with the highest discrimination, discrimination was only moderate for death (AUC 0.60) and quality of life (AUC 0.62), but better for HF-related ED visits (AUC 0.76). Calibration also varied for different outcomes. Importantly, STS risk score only independently predicted death and all-cause hospitalization but no other outcomes. Older age also only independently predicted HF-related ED visits, and race/ethnicity was not significantly associated with any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite using a combination of detailed STS/ACC TVT Registry and electronic health record data, predicting short-term clinical and patient-centered outcomes after TAVR remains challenging. More work is needed to identify more accurate predictors for post-TAVR outcomes to support personalized clinical decision making and monitoring strategies.