Search

Background: The Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) is a validated instrument for assessing quality of life (QoL) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In this study, we evaluated health status outcomes, based on the TASQ, in patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Methods: The TASQ registry was a prospective observational registry. Patients with severe AS from nine centres in Europe and one in Canada underwent either SAVR or transfemoral TAVR. Patients completed the TASQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Short Form-12 V.2 prior to the intervention, predischarge, and at 30-day and 3-month follow-ups. Primary end point was the TASQ score., Results: In both the TAVR (n=137) and SAVR (n=137) cohorts, significant increases were observed in all three scores. The overall TASQ score improved as did all but one of the individual domains at 3 months after the intervention (p<0.001). TASQ health expectations were the only domain which worsened (p<0.001). Across TASQ subscores, significant changes were evident from the time of discharge in the TAVR and 30-day follow-up in the SAVR cohort. In a categorical analysis of the TASQ, 39.7% of the TAVR group and 35.0% of the SAVR group had a substantially improved health status at 3 months compared with baseline., Conclusions: The TASQ captured changes in QoL among patients with severe AS who were treated with TAVR or SAVR. QoL improved substantially after either intervention, as indicated by changes in the TASQ overall score at 3 months., Trial Registration Number: NCT03186339., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Cloppenburg, Germany. LS, JK and MT are employees of the funder. All centres were paid by IPPMed for the enrolment and documentation of patients., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Degenerative aortic stenosis (AS), the most common valvular heart disease in the Western world, is often diagnosed late when the mortality risk becomes substantial. We determined the feasibility of AS screening during influenza vaccination at general practitioner (GP) surgeries in the UK., Methods: Consecutive subjects aged >65 years presenting to a GP for influenza vaccination underwent heart auscultation and 2D echocardiography (V-scan). Based on these findings, a patient management strategy was determined (referral to cardiologist, review within own practice or no follow-up measures) and status at 3 months was determined., Results: 167 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 75 years. On auscultation, a heart murmur was detected in 30 of 167 (18%) patients (6 subjects with an AS-specific and 24 with a non-specific murmur). 75.2% of those with no murmur had a negative V-scan finding. Conversely, 16 of 30 (53%) patients with any murmur had an abnormal V-scan finding that was largely related to the aortic valve. Using clinical auscultation and V-scan screening, a decision not to pursue follow-up measures was taken in 147 (88%) cases, whereas 18 (10.8%) subjects were referred onward; with 5 of 18 (27.8%) and 3 of 18 (16.7%) being diagnosed with mild and moderate AS., Conclusions: Our pilot study confirms feasibility of valvular heart disease screening in the elderly in a primary care setting. Using simple and inexpensive diagnostic measures and 7.3 million UK inhabitants undergoing influenza vaccination, nationwide screening could potentially identify 130 000 patients with moderate AS and a significant number of patients with severe AS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the IPPMed, Cloppenburg, Germany. RPS received honoraria for advisory board meetings and speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. MT is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. AP, NM and CD have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: There is an increasing awareness of gender-related differences in patients with severe aortic stenosis and their outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: Data from the IMPULSE registry were analysed. Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were enrolled between March 2015 and April 2017 and stratified by gender. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the impact of age., Results: Overall, 2171 patients were enrolled, and 48.0% were female. Women were characterised by a higher rate of renal impairment (31.7 vs 23.3%; p<0.001), were at higher surgical risk (EuroSCORE II: 4.5 vs 3.6%; p=0.001) and more often in a critical preoperative state (7.0vs 4.2%; p=0.003). Men had an increased rate of previous cardiac surgery (9.4 vs 4.7%; p<0.001) and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (4.9 vs 1.3%; p<0.001). Concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve disease was substantially more common among women. Symptoms were highly prevalent in both women and men (83.6 vs 77.3%; p<0.001). AVR was planned in 1379 cases. Women were more frequently scheduled to undergo TAVI (49.3 vs 41.0%; p<0.001) and less frequently for SAVR (20.3 vs 27.5%; p<0.001)., Conclusions: The present data show that female patients with severe AS have a distinct patient profile and are managed in a different way to males. Gender-based differences in the management of patients with severe AS need to be taken into account more systematically to improve outcomes, especially for women., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the IPPMed, Cloppenburg, Germany. NF, RPS and DM-Z have received honoraria for advisory board meetings and TKR speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these three and those of the remaining authors representing study centres have received funding for employing a study nurse. JK and MT are employees of the funder of this registry. As this is a disease registry, neither the type of intervention (SAVR, TAVI or medical management) nor on the valves to be used was pre-specified., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Approximately 3.4% of adults aged >75 years suffer from aortic stenosis (AS). Guideline indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) distinguish between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS. The present analysis aims to assess contemporary practice in the treatment of severe AS across Europe and identify characteristics associated with treatment decisions, namely denial of AVR in symptomatic patients and assignment of asymptomatic patients to AVR., Methods: Participants of the prospective, multinational IMPULSE database of patients with severe AS were grouped according to AS symptoms, and stratified into subgroups based on assignment to/denial of AVR., Results: Of 1608 symptomatic patients, 23.8% did not undergo AVR and underwent medical treatment. Denial was independently associated with multiple factors, including severe frailty (p=0.024); mitral (p=0.002) or tricuspid (p=0.004) regurgitation grade III/IV, and the presence of renal impairment (p=0.017). Of 392 asymptomatic patients, 86.5% had no prespecified indication for AVR. Regardless, 36.3% were assigned to valve replacement. Those with an indexed aortic valve area (AVA; p=0.045) or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; p<0.001) below the study median; or with a left ventricular end systolic diameter above the study median (p=0.007) were more likely to be assigned to AVR., Conclusions: There may be considerable discrepancies between guideline-based recommendations and clinical practice decision-making in the treatment of AS. It appears that guidelines may not fully capture the complete clinical spectrum of patients with AS. Thus, there is a need to find ways to increase their acceptance and the rate of adoption., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Peter Bramlage received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Nyon, Switzerland. Norbert Frey, Rick Steeds and David Messika-Zeitoun have received honoraria for advisory board meetings and Tanja Rudolph speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these three and those of the remaining authors representing study centres have received funding for employing a study nurse., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: An investigation into differences in the management and treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) between Germany, France and the UK may allow benchmarking of the different healthcare systems and identification of levers for improvement., Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of severe AS under management at centres within the IMPULSE and IMPULSE enhanced registries were eligible., Results: Data were collected from 2052 patients (795 Germany; 542 France; 715 UK). Patients in Germany were older (79.8 years), often symptomatic (89.5%) and female (49.8%) and had a lower EF (53.8%) than patients in France and UK. Comorbidities were more common and they had a higher mean Euroscore II.Aortic valve replacement (AVR) was planned within 3 months in 70.2%. This was higher (p<0.001) in Germany than France/ UK. Of those with planned AVR, 82.3% received it within 3 months with a gradual decline (Germany>France> UK; p<0.001). In 253 patients, AVR was not performed, despite planned. Germany had a strong transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) preference (83.2%) versus France/ UK (p<0.001). Waiting time for TAVI was shorter in Germany (24.9 days) and France (19.5 days) than UK (40.3 days).Symptomatic patients were scheduled for an AVR in 79.4% (Germany> France> UK; p<0.001) and performed in 83.6% with a TAVI preference (73.1%). 20.4% of the asymptomatic patients were intervened., Conclusion: Patients in Germany had more advanced disease. The rate of intervention within 3 months after diagnosis was startlingly low in the UK. Asymptomatic patients without a formal indication often underwent an intervention in Germany and France., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB has received research funding for the present project and honoraria for consultancy from Edwards Lifesciences. NF, RPS and DM-Z have received honoraria for advisory board meetings and TKR speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these three and those of the remaining authors representing study centers have received funding for employing a study nurse., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Contemporary data regarding the impact of comorbidities on the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce., Methods: Prospective registry of severe patients with AS across 23 centres in nine European countries., Results: Of the 2171 patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD 27.3%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (22.0%), atrial fibrillation (15.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.4%) were the most prevalent comorbidities (49.3% none, 33.9% one and 16.8% ≥2 of these). The decision to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR) was taken in a comparable proportion (67%, 72% and 69%, in patients with 0, 1 and ≥2 comorbidities; p=0.186). However, the decision for TAVI was more common with more comorbidities (35.4%, 54.0% and 57.0% for no, 1 and ≥2; p<0.001), while the decision for surgical AVR (SAVR) was decreased with increasing comorbidity burden (31.9%, 17.4% and 12.3%; p<0.001). The proportion of patients with planned AVRs that were performed within 3 months was significantly higher in patients with 1 or ≥2 comorbidities than in those without (8.7%, 10.0% and 15.7%; p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean time to AVR was significantly shorter in patients with one (30.5 days) or ≥2 comorbidities (30.8 days) than in those without (35.7 days; p=0.012). Patients with reduced LVEF tended to be offered an AVR more frequently and with a shorter delay while patients with CKD were less frequently treated., Conclusions: Comorbidities in severe patients with AS affect the presentation and management of patients with severe AS. TAVI was offered more often than SAVR and performed within a shorter time period., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the IPPMed, Cloppenburg, Germany. NF, RPS, DM-Z and TKR are consultants to Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these three and those of the remaining authors representing study centres have received funding for employing a study nurse., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Predilation of the native valve has long been deemed necessary in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI), despite little trial evidence to support its clinical use. As most evidence is derived from retrospective analyses of observational studies, we conducted a two-armed, prospective multicentre registry., Methods: Patients undergoing TF-TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve, with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV), were included and their procedural characteristics, short-term safety and short-term efficacy outcomes compared. We hypothesised that BAV may be safely omitted in many patients and omission could be associated with procedural benefits., Results: Overall, 196 consecutive patients underwent TF-TAVI, 56 with BAV and 140 without. The mean age was 81.2±6.2 years, and the mean logistic EuroSCORE I was 17.1±13.6. Device success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) was achieved in 96.4%. The median procedural duration was shorter without BAV (56 min vs 90 min; p=0.001), as was fluoroscopy time (10 min vs 13 min; p=0.001). The need for balloon postdilation was less frequent in patients without BAV (15.7% vs 30.4%, p=0.029). There was no difference in the proportion of patients meeting the VARC-2 defined composite safety endpoint at 30 days (9.3% without vs 8.9% with BAV; adjusted OR (adjOR) 2.55; 95% CI 0.56 to 18.84) and at 6 months (15.2% without vs 16.4% with BAV; adjOR 1.66; 95% CI 0.49 to 6.55)., Conclusions: In the majority of patients, BAV can be safely omitted from the TAVI procedure without adverse effects. The omission of BAV is associated with shorter procedural duration and could be advantageous for the majority of patients., Trial Registration Number: NCT02760771., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Cloppenburg (IPPMed), Germany. A research grant was provided by Edwards Lifescience, Nyon, Switzerland, to the Sponsor IPPMed. CB, TR, CJ, JR, HT, SK, DF and GS have received consultancy fees from different companies producing heart valves. LS and MTs are employees of Edwards Lifesciences., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common and most serious valve diseases. Without timely intervention with surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, patients have an estimated survival of 2-3 years. Guidelines for the treatment of AS have been developed, but studies suggest that as many as 42% of patients with AS are not treated according to these recommendations.The aims of this registry are to delineate the caseload of patients with AS, outline the management of these patients and determine appropriateness of treatments in participating centres with and without onsite access to surgery and percutaneous treatments., Methods/design: The IMPULSE enhanced registry is an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort registry conducted at four central full access centres (tertiary care hospitals) and at least two satellite centres per hub (primary/secondary care hospitals). An estimated 800 patients will be enrolled in the registry and patient follow-up will last for 12 months., Discussion: In addition to the primary aims determining the caseload management and outcome of patients with AS in primary, secondary and tertiary care settings, the registry will also determine a time course for the transition from asymptomatic to symptomatic status and the diagnostic steps, treatment decisions and the identification of decision-makers in tertiary versus primary/secondary care hospitals. The last patient will be enrolled in the registry in 2018 and results of the registry are anticipated in 2019., Registration Number: NCT03112629., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the IPPMed, Cloppenburg, Germany. IPPMed has received research funding and honoraria for consultancy from Edwards Lifesciences. TKR, NF, ML, RPS and DM-Z received honoraria for advisory board meetings from Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these received funding for employing a study nurse.

Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have a reduced life expectancy and quality of life (QoL), owing to advanced age and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Currently, there is no AS-specific QoL measurement tool, which prevents an accurate assessment of how this chronic condition and its treatment affect patients. The Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) was developed in order to address this deficiency., Methods: The present trial protocol was designed to enable validation of the TASQ, which has been produced in five languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish) to increase usability. Patients with severe AS who are undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) will be asked to complete the TASQ and, for comparative purposes, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the general health-related QoL Short Form-12 questionnaire. The questionnaires will be completed prior to the intervention, at discharge, as well as at 30 days and 3 months follow-up. A total of 290 patients will be recruited across one Canadian and nine European centres. Overall, the protocol validation aims to include 120 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI (TF-TAVI), 120 undergoing SAVR and up to 50 being treated medically. The primary objective of the registry is to validate the TASQ in five different languages. The secondary objective is to assess the utility of the TASQ for assessing differences in QoL outcome between patients undergoing TF-TAVI, SAVR or medical management for their AS., Discussion: Validation and roll-out of the TASQ will enable clinicians to capture an accurate assessment of how AS and its management affects the QoL of patients and will help them to determine the most appropriate treatment strategy for individual patients., Trial Registration Number: NCT03186339., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Cloppenburg, Germany. All centres were paid by IPPMed for the enrolment and documentation of patients.