Is the outcome of elective vs non-elective patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation different? Results of a single-centre, observational assessment of outcomes at a large university clinic.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can either be conducted as an elective (scheduled in advance) or a non-elective procedure performed during an unplanned hospital admission. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of elective and non-elective TAVI patients. METHODS: This single-centre study included 512 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI between October 2018 and December 2020; 378 (73.8%) were admitted for elective TAVI, 134 (26.2%) underwent a non-elective procedure. Our TAVI programme entails an optimized fast-track concept aimed at minimizing the total length of stay to ≤ 5 days for elective patients which in the German healthcare system is currently defined as the minimal time period to safely perform TAVI. Clinical characteristics and survival rates at 30 days and 1 year were analysed. RESULTS: Patients who underwent non-elective TAVI had a significantly higher comorbidity burden. Median duration from admission to discharge was 6 days (elective group 6 days versus non-elective group 15 days; p < 0.001), including a median postprocedural stay of 5 days (elective 4 days versus non-elective 7 days; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 1.1% for the elective group and 3.7% for non-elective patients (p = 0.030). At 1 year, all-cause mortality among elective TAVI patients was disproportionately lower than in non-elective patients (5.0% versus 18.7%, p < 0.001). In the elective group, 54.5% of patients could not be discharged early due to comorbidities or procedural complications. Factors associated with a failure of achieving a total length of stay of ≤ 5 days comprised frailty syndrome, renal impairment as well as new permanent pacemaker implantation, new bundle branch block or atrial fibrillation, life-threatening bleeding, and the use of self-expanding valves. After multivariate adjustment, new permanent pacemaker implantation (odds ratio 6.44; 95% CI 2.59-16.00), life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio 4.19; 95% confidence interval 1.82-9.66) and frailty syndrome (odds ratio 5.15; 95% confidence interval 2.40-11.09; all p < 0.001, respectively) were confirmed as significant factors. CONCLUSIONS: While non-elective patients had acceptable periprocedural outcomes, mortality rates at 1 year were significantly higher compared to elective patients. Approximately only half of elective patients could be discharged early. Improvements in periprocedural care, follow-up strategies and optimized treatment of both elective and non-elective TAVI patients are needed.

Setting a Benchmark for Quality of Care: Update on Best Practices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Programs.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established therapy for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. The evolution of technology and procedural approaches has facilitated the development of streamlined clinical pathways to optimize patient care and improve outcomes. The revision of historical practices and the adoption of contemporary best practices throughout patients' journey from referral to discharge create opportunities to drive quality improvement. Nursing expertise and leadership are essential to recalibrate preprocedure, periprocedure, and postprocedure practice to transform the way we care for TAVR, achieve excellent outcomes, and promote high-performing health services for the treatment of valvular heart disease.

The COORDINATE Pilot Study: Impact of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Coordinator Program on Hospital and Patient Outcomes.

The transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment pathway is complex, leading to procedure-related delays. Dedicated TAVI coordinators can improve pathway efficiency. COORDINATE was a pilot observational prospective registry at three German centers that enrolled consecutive elective patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI to investigate the impact a TAVI coordinator program. Pathway parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed before (control group) and after TAVI coordinator program implementation (intervention phase). The number of repeated diagnostics remained unchanged after implementation. Patients with separate hospitalizations for screening and TAVI had long delays, which increased after implementation (65 days pre- vs. 103 days post-implementation); hospitalizations combining these were more efficient. The mean time between TAVI and hospital discharge remained constant. Nurse (p = 0.001) and medical technician (p = 0.008) working hours decreased. Patient satisfaction increased, and more consistent/intensive contact between patients and staff was reported. TAVI coordinators provided more post-TAVI support, including discharge management. No adverse effects on post-procedure or 30-day outcomes were seen. This pilot suggests that TAVI coordinator programs may improve aspects of the TAVI pathway, including post-TAVI care and patient satisfaction, without compromising safety. These findings will be further investigated in the BENCHMARK registry.

New insights on potential permanent pacemaker predictors in TAVR using the largest self-expandable device.

BACKGROUND: Post-procedural conduction disorders following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) still remain frequent, especially using the largest self-expandable device (Medtronic Corevalve Evolut RTM, 34 mm, STHV-34). We, therefore, assessed previously described, predictive factors of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation in the context of the STHV-34, including calcification distribution, implantation depth and membranous septum length (MSL). METHODS: We performed a dual centre analysis of 130 of 182 consecutive patients treated with STHV-34, further stratified into subjects without post-procedural PPM (-PPM n=100, 76.9%) and those requiring post-procedural PPM (+PPM n=30, 23.1%). These events were further analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis according to several underlying conditions. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis only depicted previous right bundle branch block [RBBB; OR: 11.52 (2.63-50.44), P=0.001] and eccentricity index of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT-EI) >0.3 [OR: 3.07 (1.22-7.77), P=0.018] as highly predictive for PPM-need, being also confirmed by c-statistics [area under the curve (AUC) =0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80; P=0.0025]. There was only moderate correlation of implantation depth over the MSL in terms of PPM prediction (r=0.23; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study offers new insights into potential PPM predictors using the STHV-34: previous RBBB and a pronounced LVOT-EI were independent predictors of PPM, while most of the previously reported determinants failed to predict PPM-need including MSL and implantation depth.