Evaluating Procedural Performance: A Composite Outcome for Aortic and Pulmonary Valvuloplasty in Congenital Cardiac Catheterization.

ABSTRACT

Background: Safety events and technical success (TS) have been previously reported for aortic and pulmonary valvuloplasty, but a composite performance measure as a novel, patient-centered strategy has neither been developed nor been studied. This study aims to refine a procedural performance (PP) variable, a composite of TS and procedural safety, for isolated, standard-risk aortic and pulmonary valvuloplasty. Methods: A multicenter review was performed using data from the Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Project on Outcomes registry. Data were collected for all cases of isolated balloon aortic and pulmonary valvuloplasty from 2014 through 2017. Patients were excluded if they were aged <1 month, were inpatient at the time of the procedure, or had significant comorbidities, such as Williams or Noonan syndrome. Criteria for TS were developed and categorized (optimal, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory) by expert consensus based on previous outcome research. Adverse events (AE) were categorized by severity (level 1-5) using established criteria. Level 4 and 5 severity AE were considered high-severity AE. Using criteria of TS and AE severity, PP was divided into 3 composite outcome classes. Factors correlating with class III (suboptimal) PP were analyzed. Results: There were 169 cases of aortic and 270 cases of pulmonary valvuloplasty in the cohorts. In the aortic valvuloplasty cohort, a suboptimal PP (class III) occurred in 14% of cases, mostly due to high-severity AE (7%). No significant correlation between patient or case characteristics and PP was demonstrated. In the pulmonary valvuloplasty cohort, class III PP occurred in 9% of cases, predominantly due to residual valve gradient, which correlated with lower weight (P = .02). Conclusions: We designed a composite variable of PP consisting of TS and safety as a comprehensive measure of outcome. Incorporating both TS and AE may better reflect patient outcome than each metric measured separately. PP indices may identify areas for further investigation and quality improvement.