The Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-Conduction Study: The Value of the His-Ventricular Interval in Risk Stratification for Post-TAVR Atrioventricular-Block.

Background: There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal risk stratification of high-degree atrioventricular block (HDAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: This prospective study sought to determine the utility of the pre- and post-TAVR His-ventricular (HV) interval in the risk stratification of post-TAVR HDAVB. One hundred twenty-one patients underwent an electrophysiology study before and after TAVR. The primary outcome was HDAVB requiring pacemaker implantation within 30 days post-TAVR. A separate retrospective cohort was analyzed to determine the postoperative interval at which the risk of HDAVB is reduced to <5%. Results: HDAVB occurred in 12 (10%) patients. Baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) (odds ratio [OR]: 13.6), implant depth >4 mm (OR: 3.9), use of mechanically- or self-expanding valves (OR: 6.3), and post-TAVR HV > 65 â€‹ms (OR: 4.9) were associated with increased risk of HDAVB, whereas PR intervals and pre-TAVR HV were not. In patients without baseline RBBB or new persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB), not one patient with post-TAVR HV < 65 â€‹ms developed HDAVB. In the separate retrospective cohort (N = 1049), the risk of HDAVB is reduced (<5%) on postoperative days 4 and 3 in patients with pre-TAVR RBBB and post-TAVR persistent LBBB, respectively. Conclusions: Baseline RBBB, new persistent LBBB, implant depth >4 mm, and a post-TAVR HV ≥ 65 â€‹ms were associated with a higher risk of post-TAVR HDAVB, whereas an HV ≤ 65 â€‹ms was associated with a lower risk. The pre-TAVR HV was not associated with our outcome, and the delta HV did not have practical incremental prognostic value. Among those without pre-TAVR RBBB or post-TAVR persistent LBBB, no patients with post-TAVR HV < 65 â€‹ms developed HDAVB.

JACC: Advances Expert Panel Perspective: Shared Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Team-Based Cardiovascular Care.

Shared decision-making (SDM) and multidisciplinary team-based care delivery are recommended across several cardiology clinical practice guidelines. However, evidence for benefit and guidance on implementation are limited. Informed consent, the use of patient decision aids, or the documentation of these elements for governmental or societal agencies may be conflated as SDM. SDM is a bidirectional exchange between experts: patients are the experts on their goals, values, and preferences, and clinicians provide their expertise on clinical factors. In this Expert Panel perspective, we review the current state of SDM in team-based cardiovascular care and propose best practice recommendations for multidisciplinary team implementation of SDM.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of alcohol septal ablation in the era of transcatheter valve interventions.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of alcohol septal ablation (ASA) for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) have been well-established; however, less is known about outcomes in patients undergoing preemptive ASA before transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). AIMS: The goal of this study is to characterize the procedural characteristics and examine the clinical outcomes of ASA in both HCM and pre-TMVR. METHODS: This retrospective study compared procedural characteristics and outcomes in patient who underwent ASA for HCM and TMVR. RESULTS: In total, 137 patients were included, 86 in the HCM group and 51 in the TMVR group. The intraventricular septal thickness (mean 1.8 vs. 1.2 cm; p < 0.0001) and the pre-ASA LVOT gradient (73.6 vs. 33.8 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) were higher in the HCM group vs the TMVR group. The mean volume of ethanol injected was higher (mean 2.4 vs. 1.7 cc; p < 0.0001). The average neo-left ventricular outflow tract area increased significantly after ASA in the patients undergoing TMVR (99.2 ± 83.37 mm2 vs. 196.5 ± 114.55 mm2; p = <0.0001). The HCM group had a greater reduction in the LVOT gradient after ASA vs the TMVR group (49.3 vs. 18 mmHg; p = 0.0040). The primary composite endpoint was higher in the TMVR group versus the HCM group (50.9% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.0404) and had a higher incidence of new permanent pacemaker (PPM) (25.5% vs. 18.6%; p = 0.3402). The TMVR group had a higher rate of all-cause mortality (9.8% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.0268). CONCLUSIONS: Preemptive ASA before TMVR was performed in patients with higher degree of clinical comorbidities, and correspondingly is associated with worse short-term clinical outcomes in comparison to ASA for HCM patients. ASA before TMVR enabled percutaneous mitral interventions in a small but significant minority of patients that would have otherwise been excluded. The degree of LVOT and neoLVOT area increase is significant and predictable.

Update on Valvular Heart Disease for Registered Nurses.

Over the last few decades, there have been dramatic advances in the understanding of the mechanisms of valvular heart disease and development of percutaneous treatment options. These innovations have resulted in the need for a multidisciplinary heart team approach for quality patient outcomes, a team in which nursing is an integral member. This update provides an overview of the major valve diseases, current guideline recommendations, catheter-based treatment options and key elements of nursing care: physical examination, diagnostic testing, pre- and post-procedure care protocols, and patient education elements.

The Multidisciplinary Heart Team in Cardiovascular Medicine: Current Role and Future Challenges.

Cardiovascular multidisciplinary heart teams (MDHTs) have evolved significantly over the past decade. These teams play a central role in the treatment of a wide array of cardiovascular diseases affecting interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, interventional imaging, advanced heart failure, adult congenital heart disease, cardio-oncology, and cardio-obstetrics. To meet the specific needs of both patients and heart programs, the composition and function of cardiovascular MDHTs have had to adapt and evolve. Although lessons have been learned from multidisciplinary cancer care, best practices for the operation of cardiovascular MDHTs have yet to be defined, and the evidence base supporting their effectiveness is limited. This expert panel review discusses the history and evolution of cardiovascular MDHTs, their composition and role in treating patients across a broad spectrum of disciplines, basic tenets for successful operation, and the future challenges facing them.

Procedural and Mid-Term Outcomes of Coronary Protection During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Risk of Coronary Occlusion: Insight From a Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Detailed procedural analysis and long-term data is limited for coronary protection (CP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with high anatomical risk for coronary occlusion (CO). We aim to assess the procedural and mid-term outcomes of CP during TAVR. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent TAVR at Henry Ford Hospital, USA from January 2015 to August 2019 and identified those considered at risk of CO and underwent pre-emptive CP with or without subsequent "chimney" stenting (i.e. coronary stenting with intentional protrusion into the aorta). Procedural features, immediate and mid-term clinical outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 1166 (2.1%) patients underwent TAVR with CP, including 10 (40%) valve-in-valve procedures. Twenty-eight coronary arteries (Left: n = 11, Right: n = 11; Left + Right: n = 3) were protected. Eleven coronaries (39.3%) were electively "chimney"-stented due to angiographic evidence of coronary impingement (63.6%), tactile resistance while withdrawing stent (27.3%) and electrocardiogram change (9.1%). Twenty-four patients (24/25, 96%) had successful TAVR without CO. Procedure-related complications included stent-balloon entrapment (n = 1), stent entrapment (n = 1) and occlusive distal stent edge dissection (n = 1). After a mean follow-up of 19.1 months, there was 1 cardiac death but no target vessel re-intervention or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that angiographic evidence of coronary impingement (63.6%) was the most common reason for stent deployment during TAVR with CP. The mid-term clinical outcome of CP with TAVR was favorable.

2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Conduction Disturbances in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been elusive. This is due to the absence of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved. In the absence of high-quality trials, numerous practice styles have been developed, and prolonged observation, electrophysiological testing, and pre-emptive pacemaker implantation have been described. Although the 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, they do not provide in-depth discussion of this topic. Furthermore, a summary and proposed strategy for this problem have not been published by cardiovascular societies in the United States, despite an interest in establishing best practices in TAVR, valvular heart disease, and cardiovascular implantable electrical devices. This document reviews existing data and experience regarding the management of conduction disturbances after TAVR and proposes an evidence-based expert consensus decision pathway for their management. Where evidence is lacking or insufficient, the recommendations herein are based on expert opinion.

2015 ACC Health Policy Statement on Cardiovascular Team-Based Care and the Role of Advanced Practice Providers.

The mission of the American College of Cardiology is "to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health." Cardiovascular team-based care is a paradigm for practice that can transform care, improve heart health, and help meet the demands of the future. One strategic goal of the College is to help members successfully transition their clinical practices to the future, with all its complexity, challenges, and opportunities. The ACC's strategic plan is aligned with the triple aim of improved care, improved population health, and lower costs per capita. The traditional understanding of quality, access, and cost is that you cannot improve one component without diminishing the others. With cardiovascular team-based care, it is possible to achieve the triple aim of improving quality, access, and cost simultaneously to also improve cardiovascular health. Striving to serve the best interests of patients is the true north of our guiding principles. Cardiovascular team-based care is a model that can improve care coordination and communication and allow each team member to focus more on the quality of care. In addition, the cardiovascular team-based care model increases access to cardiovascular care and allows expansion of services to populations and geographic areas that are currently underserved. This document will increase awareness of the important components of cardiovascular team-based care and create an opportunity for more discussion about the most creative and effective means of implementing it. We hope that this document will stimulate further discussions and activities within the ACC and beyond about team-based care. We have identified areas that need improvement, specifically in APP education and state regulation. The document encourages the exploration of collaborative care models that should enable team members to optimize their education, training, experience, and talent. Improved team leadership, coordination, collaboration, engagement, and efficiency will enable the delivery of higher-value care to the betterment of our patients and society.

Caval-aortic access to allow transcatheter aortic valve replacement in otherwise ineligible patients: initial human experience.

OBJECTIVES: This study describes the first use of caval-aortic access and closure to enable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients who lacked other access options. Caval-aortic access refers to percutaneous entry into the abdominal aorta from the femoral vein through the adjoining inferior vena cava. BACKGROUND: TAVR is attractive in high-risk or inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Available transcatheter valves require large introducer sheaths, which are a risk for major vascular complications or preclude TAVR altogether. Caval-aortic access has been successful in animals. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of procedural and 30-day outcomes of prohibitive-risk patients who underwent TAVR via caval-aortic access. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and January 2014, 19 patients underwent TAVR via caval-aortic access; 79% were women. Caval-aortic access and tract closure were successful in all 19 patients; TAVR was successful in 17 patients. Six patients experienced modified VARC-2 major vascular complications, 2 (11%) of whom required intervention. Most (79%) required blood transfusion. There were no deaths attributable to caval-aortic access. Throughout the 111 (range 39 to 229) days of follow up, there were no post-discharge complications related to tract creation or closure. All patients had persistent aorto-caval flow immediately post-procedure. Of the 16 patients who underwent repeat imaging after the first week, 15 (94%) had complete closure of the residual aorto-caval tract. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous transcaval venous access to the aorta allows TAVR in otherwise ineligible patients, and may offer a new access strategy for other applications requiring large transcatheter implants.

Assessing the productivity of advanced practice providers using a time and motion study.

The Resource-Based Relative Value Scale is widely used to measure healthcare provider productivity and to set payment standards. The scale, however, is limited in its assessment of pre- and postservice work and other potentially non-revenue-generating healthcare services, what we have termed service-valued activity (SVA). In an attempt to quantify SVA, we conducted a time and motion study of providers to assess their productivity in inpatient and outpatient settings. Using the Standard Time and Motion Procedures checklist as a methodological guide, we provided personal digital assistants (PDAs) that were prepopulated with 2010 Current Procedural Terminology codes to 19 advanced practice providers (APPs). The APPs were instructed to identify their location and activity each time the PDA randomly alarmed. The providers collected data for 3 to 5 workdays, and those data were separated into revenue-generating services (RGSs) and SVAs. Multiple inpatient and outpatient departments were assessed. The inpatient APPs spent 61.6 percent of their time on RGSs and 35.1 percent on SVAs. Providers in the outpatient settings spent 59.0 percent of their time on RGSs and 38.2 percent on SVAs. This time and motion study demonstrated an innovative method and tool for the quantification and analysis of time spent on revenue- and non-revenue-generating services provided by healthcare professionals. The new information derived from this study can be used to accurately document productivity, determine clinical practice patterns, and improve deployment strategies of healthcare providers.