RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous valve therapies (PVT) are performed on a large number of patients. With increasing procedural volume, the need for follow-up has also increased. Follow-up in the heart valve clinic is endorsed by recent guidelines but utilization is unknown, making resource allocation in the clinic difficult. Central follow-up in valve centers may not be feasible for all patients in the future. METHODS: In our center, follow-up for PVT patients is scheduled at 1 month and 12 months after the index procedure. Patients are reminded of their appointment by invitation letters or phone calls. We analyzed 150 consecutive patients who underwent transcutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and MitraClip implantation (nâ¯= 300) at our center. RESULTS: At 1 month, 72.7% of patients attended their follow-up, while at 12 months the rate dropped to 58%. Patients who underwent TAVI were older than the MitraClip patients (82.7 vs. 76.1 years) but had lower mean logEuroSCORE (22.6% vs. 25.9%). There was no significant difference in 1year mortality between TAVI and MitraClip patients (20% vs. 17.3%). By contrast, the rate of missed follow-up visits was higher for TAVI compared to MitraClip patients (52% vs. 33.3%; pâ¯= 0.002). Female patients less frequently attended follow-up (pâ¯= 0.005), whereas age, EuroSCORE, NYHA class, ejection fraction, and health status (EQ-5DVAS) were not predictors of attendance in multivariable analysis. Although the result of the EQ-5D assessment was not associated with mortality or attendance, completing the questionnaire was associated with overall survival (pâ¯< 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our heart valve clinic, we observed a high percentage of missed follow-up appointments (42% at 12 months) despite a structured follow-up plan. Factors significantly associated with non-attendance in multivariable analysis were female gender and having a TAVI rather than MitraClip. Future follow-up concepts should take such findings into account, and decentralized approaches need to be explored.