An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care. METHODS: This prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter. RESULTS: 30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality. CONCLUSIONS: AVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend including the patient's values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS. METHODS: This multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients' most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters. RESULTS: 51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36-92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients' value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients' priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Identifying opportunities to advance health equity in interventional cardiology: Structural heart disease.

Health care practices are influenced by variety of factors. These factors that include social determinants, race and ethnicity, and gender not only affect access to health care but can also affect quality of care and patient outcomes. These are a source of health care disparities. This article acknowledges that these disparities exist in getting optimal care in structural heart disease, reviews the literature and proposes steps that can help reduce these disparities on personal and committee levels.

Aortic Valve Stenosis Treatment Disparities in the Underserved: JACC Council Perspectives.

Underserved minorities make up a disproportionately small subset of patients in the United States undergoing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. The reasons for these treatment gaps include differences in disease prevalence and patient, health care system, and disease-related factors. This has major implications not only for minority patients, but also for other groups who face similar challenges in accessing state-of-the-art care for structural heart disease. The authors propose the following key strategies to address these treatment disparities: 1) implementation of measure-based quality improvement programs; 2) effective culturally competent communication and team-based care; 3) improving patient health care access, education, and effective diagnosis; and 4) changing the research paradigm that creates an innovation pipeline for patients. Only a concerted effort from all stakeholders will achieve equitable and broad application of this and other novel structural heart disease treatment modalities in the future.

Comparison of Frequency of Referral to Cardiothoracic Surgery for Aortic Valve Disease in Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites.

Racial differences in prevalence and in intervention rate of those with severe aortic stenosis have been reported. Our objective was to evaluate health disparities in referral to cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) for aortic stenosis in black and Hispanic compared with white patients before the transcatheter aortic valve replacement program was started in our community. Using a retrospective cohort design, we identified all patients >40 years, who had been captured with aortic valve disease from January 2011 to June 2016. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected manually. Exposure was race/ethnicity; outcome was referral to CTS. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted with variables that had significance of p <0.20 in univariate model. We included 952 patients in the final analysis (423 white, 376 black, and 153 Hispanic). Compared with whites, black subjects were significantly younger, had more advanced degrees of kidney disease, were more likely to have Medicaid as payer, and had more atherogenic co-morbidities. Black patients had significantly higher aortic valve area indexed for body surface area, more aortic regurgitation, lower peak velocities, lower transvalvular gradients, less calcified valves, and fewer patients in aortic stenosis stage D. The adjusted odds ratio for CTS referral was 0.48 for blacks (p <0.001) and 0.86 for Hispanics (p = 0.73) compared with whites. In conclusion, after adjusting for clinical and echocardiographic variables, black patients were less likely to be referred to CTS for treatment of aortic valve disease. We found no difference in the referral pattern of Hispanic compared with white patients.

Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery calcium testing for coronary heart and cardiovascular disease risk prediction to guide statin allocation: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).

BACKGROUND: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) showed that the addition of coronary artery calcium (CAC) to traditional risk factors improves risk classification, particularly in intermediate risk asymptomatic patients with LDL cholesterol levels <160 mg/dL. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating CAC into treatment decision rules has yet to be clearly delineated. OBJECTIVE: To model the cost-effectiveness of CAC for cardiovascular risk stratification in asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients not taking a statin. Treatment based on CAC was compared to (1) treatment of all intermediate-risk patients, and (2) treatment on the basis of United States guidelines. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of first coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. We modeled statin treatment in intermediate risk patients with CAC≥1 and CAC≥100, with different intensities of statins based on the CAC score. We compared these CAC-based treatment strategies to a "treat all" strategy and to treatment according to the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines. Clinical and economic outcomes were modeled over both five- and ten-year time horizons. Outcomes consisted of CHD and CVD events and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses considered the effect of higher event rates, different CAC and statin costs, indirect costs, and re-scanning patients with incidentalomas. RESULTS: We project that it is both cost-saving and more effective to scan intermediate-risk patients for CAC and to treat those with CAC≥1, compared to treatment based on established risk-assessment guidelines. Treating patients with CAC≥100 is also preferred to existing guidelines when we account for statin side effects and the disutility of statin use. CONCLUSION: Compared to the alternatives we assessed, CAC testing is both effective and cost saving as a risk-stratification tool, particularly if there are adverse effects of long-term statin use. CAC may enable providers to better tailor preventive therapy to patients' risks of CVD.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: historical perspectives, current evidence, and future directions.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) results in considerable morbidity and mortality without aortic valve replacement and is expected to increase in prevalence with the aging population. Because AS primarily affects the elderly, many patients with comorbidities are poor candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and may not be referred. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as transformative technology for the management of AS over the past decade. Randomized trials have established the safety and efficacy of TAVR with improved mortality and quality of life compared with medical therapy in inoperable patients, while demonstrating noninferiority and even superiority to SAVR among high-risk operative candidates. However, early studies demonstrated an early penalty of stroke and vascular complications with TAVR as well as increased paravalvular leak as compared with SAVR. Two device platforms have been evaluated and approved for use in the United States: the Edwards SAPIEN and the Medtronic CoreValve. Early studies also suggest cost-effectiveness for TAVR. Ongoing studies are evaluating new iterations of the aforementioned TAVR devices, novel device designs, and applications of TAVR in expanded populations of patients including those with lower risk profiles as well as those with comorbidities that were excluded from early clinical trials. Future improvements in TAVR technology will likely reduce periprocedural and long-term complications. Further studies are needed to confirm device durability over long-term follow-up and explore the applicability of TAVR to broader AS patient populations.

A novel case of transient right ventricular failure in a patient with respiratory distress.

Right ventricular (RV) failure is characterized by an inability to pump blood into the pulmonary circulation and can often lead to hemodynamic instability. Common causes of RV failure include left ventricular (LV) failure, RV infarction, sepsis, cor pulmonale due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary emboli, or pulmonary hypertension. We report the case of a 61-year-old woman with no significant pulmonary or cardiac disease who presented with hypoxic respiratory failure in the setting of opioid overdose. She remained obtunded despite naloxone treatment and required endotracheal intubation as well as norepinephrine therapy for persistent hypotension. A transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrated isolated severe RV dysfunction without any LV abnormalities. Cardiac catheterization showed no obstructive coronary artery disease, pulmonary hypertension, or elevated left atrial pressures, and chest imaging only revealed signs of aspiration. Over the next 6 days, the patient's cardiac and respiratory function improved, and a repeat echocardiogram demonstrated complete normalization of RV function. This case demonstrates a novel finding that marked, but transient, RV dysfunction can occur in the setting of acute respiratory failure.

Thrombectomy Devices in Coronary Intervention.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the favored mode of reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when able to be performed in a timely fashion in appropriately selected patients. However, controversy about the role of coronary thrombectomy in the management of STEMI persists because of a paucity of favorable historical data. After the TAPAS trial thrombectomy has gained favor in recent years. The results of the TOTAL, TASTE, and SMART percutaneous coronary intervention trials will provide further insight into the use of thrombectomy in STEMI. This article examines the relevant trial evidence regarding how to best manage and apply thrombectomy in clinical practice.

Waiting for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel IV Guidelines, and in the meantime, some challenges and recommendations.

The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) has provided education and guidance for decades on the management of hypercholesterolemia. Its third report (ATP III) was published 10 years ago, with a white paper update in 2004. There is a need for translation of more recent evidence into a revised guideline. To help address the significant challenges facing the ATP IV writing group, this statement aims to provide balanced recommendations that build on ATP III. The authors aim for simplicity to increase the likelihood of implementation in clinical practice. To move from ATP III to ATP IV, the authors recommend the following: (1) assess risk more accurately, (2) simplify the starting algorithm, (3) prioritize statin therapy, (4) relax the follow-up interval for repeat lipid testing, (5) designate <70 mg/dl as an "ideal" low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target, (6) endorse targets beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, (7) refine therapeutic target levels to the equivalent population percentile, (8) remove misleading descriptors such as "borderline high," and (9) make lifestyle messages simpler. In conclusion, the solutions offered in this statement represent ways to translate the totality of published reports into enhanced hyperlipidemia guidelines to better combat the devastating impact of hyperlipidemia on cardiovascular health.

Evidence-based use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Three-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, commonly known as statins, are widely available, inexpensive, and represent a potent therapy for treating elevated cholesterol. Current national guidelines put forth by the Adult Treatment Panel III recommend statins as part of a comprehensive primary prevention strategy for patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at increased risk for developing coronary heart disease within 10 years. Lack of a clear-cut mortality benefit in primary prevention has caused some to question the use of statins for patients without known coronary heart disease. On review of the literature, we conclude that current data support only a modest mortality benefit for statin primary prevention when assessed in the short term (<5 years). Of note, statin primary prevention results in a significant decrease in cardiovascular morbidity over the short and long term and a trend toward increased reduction in mortality over the long term. When appraised together, these data provide compelling evidence to support the use of statins for primary prevention in patients with risk factors for developing coronary heart disease over the next 10 years.