Patient-defined goals for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for aortic valve replacement are a unique population with multiple treatment options, including medical therapy, surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Traditionally, in elderly populations, goals of treatment may favour quality of life over survival. Professional guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in shared decision making, a process that may lead to decisions more aligned with patient-defined goals of care. Goals of care for high-risk patients with AS are not well defined in the literature, and patient-reported barriers to shared decision making highlight the need for explicit encouragement from clinicians for patient involvement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to elicit and report patient-defined goals from elderly patients facing treatment decisions for severe AS. METHODS: This analysis was conducted at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, an academic medical institution. In a retrospective manner, we qualitatively analysed goal statements reported by high-risk, elderly patients with severe AS evaluated for TAVR between June 2012 and August 2014. RESULTS: Forty-six patients provided treatment goals during consideration of TAVR and defined preferred outcomes as maintaining independence, staying alive, reducing symptoms or, most commonly, increasing their ability to do a specific activity or hobby. CONCLUSIONS: In the high-risk patient population considering TAVR, patient-reported goals may be obtained with a simple question delivered during the clinical encounter. Encouraging patients to define their goals may lead to a greater degree of shared decision making, as advocated in current professional guidelines.

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Determine predictors of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). DESIGN: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing TAVR at the authors' institution. Extracted data included patient demographics, electrocardiogram, procedural, and echocardiographic data. Multivariate regression was performed to identify associations with PPM implantation. SETTING: Single-center academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing TAVR. INTERVENTIONS: This study was retrospective. No interventions were performed on patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline electrocardiogram, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, age, and echocardiographic parameters were not predictors of PPM implantation. However, multiple deployments was a risk factor, and degree of paravalvular leak trended toward significance. Ten patients required placement of a 2nd valve, or valve-in-valve (VIV). Of the 10 patients with VIV, 5 (50%) required a PPM, compared with 8 (14%) of 56 patients with a single valve (OR 6.0, p = 0.02). PPM implantation occurred in 5 (42%) patients with no leak, 8 (19%) patients with trace leak, and no patients with mild or moderate leak (p = 0.085). In patients with no or trace leak, VIV increased the likelihood of PPM from 17.4% to 62.5% (OR 7.9, p = 0.006). For the 42 patients with trace leak, VIV increased the likelihood of PPM from 11.4% to 57.1% (OR 10.33, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found VIV placement, and likely degree of paravalvular leak, to be predictors of PPM placement. VIV and the degree of leak may be useful markers for postoperative prophylactic pacemaker placement.

Best Practice Recommendations for Optimizing Care in Structural Heart Programs: Planning Efficient and Resource Leveraging Systems (PEARLS).

The COVID19 pandemic brought unprecedented disruption to healthcare. Staggering morbidity, mortality, and economic losses prompted the review and refinement of care for structural heart disease (SHD). To mitigate negative impacts in the face of crisis or capacity constraints, this paper offers best practice recommendations for Planning Efficient and Resource Leveraging Systems (PEARLS) in structural heart programs. A systematic assessment is recommended for hospital capacity, Heart Team roles and functions, and patient and procedural risks associated with increased resource utilization. Strategies, tactics, and pathways are provided for the delivery of patient-centered, efficient and resource-leveraging care from referral to follow-up. Through the optimal use of capacity and resources, paired with dynamic triage, forecasting, and surveillance, Heart Teams may aspire to plan and implement an optimized system of care for SHD. Abbreviations: AS: aortic stenosis; ASD: atrioseptal defect; COVID19: Coronavirus disease 19; LAAO: left atrial appendage occlusion; MI: myocardial infarction; MR: mitral regurgitation; PFO: patent foramen ovale; PVL: paravalvular leak; SHD: structural heart disease; SAVR: surgical aortic valve replacement; SDM: shared decision-making; TAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TMVr: transcatheter mitral valve repair; TMVR: transcatheter mitral valve replacement; TEE: transesophageal echocardiography; TTE: transthoracic echocardiography.