Transcatheter tricuspid valve repair: early experience in the Netherlands

BackgroundSymptomatic tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is increasingly prevalent and impairs quality of life and survival, despite medical treatment. Transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVR) has recently become available as a treatment option for patients not eligible for tricuspid valve surgery. In this study we describe the early experience with TTVR in the Netherlands.MethodsAll consecutive patients scheduled for TTVR in two tertiary hospitals were included in the current study. Patients were symptomatic and had severe functional TR. TTVR was performed either with the MitraClip (off-label use) or dedicated TriClip delivery system and device. Procedural success was defined as achievement of clip implantation, TR reduction ≥ 1 grade and no need for re-do surgical or transcatheter intervention. Clinical improvement was evaluated after 4 weeks.ResultsTwenty-one patients (median age 78 years, 33% male, 95% New York Heart Association class ≥ 3, 100% history of atrial fibrillation) underwent TTVR. Procedural success was achieved in 16 patients, of whom 15 reported symptomatic improvement (New York Heart Association class 1 or 2). There was no in-hospital mortality and no major complications occurred. Baseline glomerular filtration rate and TR coaptation gap size were associated with procedural success.ConclusionThe current study showed that TTVR seems a promising treatment option for patients with severe functional TR deemed high risk for surgery. Successful TR reduction is most likely in patients with limited coaptation gap size and strongly determines clinical benefit. Adequate patient selection and timing of treatment seem essential for an optimal patient outcome.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01613-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Physical activity,dietary intake and quality of life during COVID-19 lockdown in patients awaiting transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a national lockdown in the Netherlands, which also affected transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients. The objective of the study was to describe physical activity, dietary intake and quality of life (QoL) in patients on the waiting list for TAVI pre-lockdown and during lockdown.MethodsConsecutive patients awaiting TAVI at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands were included. Measurements were self-reported effect of lockdown, physical activity, dietary intake and QoL.ResultsIn total, 58 patients (median age 80, interquartile range (IQR) 76–84, 45% female) were observed pre-lockdown and 16 patients (median age 78, IQR 76–82, 25% female) during lockdown. Ten of the 16 patients during lockdown reported a decline in physical activity. However, we observed a median number of 5861 steps a day (IQR 4579–7074) pre-lockdown and 8404 steps a day (IQR 7653–10,829) during lockdown. Median daily protein intake was 69 g (IQR 59–82) pre-lockdown and 90 g (IQR 68–107) during lockdown. Self-rated health on a visual analogue scale was 63 points (IQR 51–74) pre-lockdown and 73 points (IQR 65–86) during lockdown.ConclusionsMore than half of the patients during lockdown reported less physical activity, while we observed a higher number of steps a day, a similar dietary intake and a higher QoL. Therefore, patients on the TAVI waiting list appeared to be able to cope with the lockdown measures.     

Major threats to early safety after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a contemporary cohort of real-world patients

IntroductionDespite considerable advances in the last decade, major adverse events remain a concern after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to provide a detailed overview of their underlying causes and contributing factors in order to identify key domains for quality improvement.MethodsThis observational, prospective registry included all patients undergoing TAVI between 31 December 2015 and 1 January 2020 at the St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein and the University Medical Centre in Utrecht. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, severe acute kidney injury and conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker implantation within 30 days after TAVI, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium‑2 criteria.ResultsOf the 1250 patients who underwent TAVI in the evaluated period, 146 (11.7%) developed a major complication. In 54 (4.3%) patients a thromboembolic event occurred, leading to stroke in 36 (2.9%), myocardial infarction in 13 (1.0%) and lower limb ischaemia in 11 (0.9%). Major bleeding occurred in 65 (5.2%) patients, most frequently consisting of acute cardiac tamponade (n = 25; 2.0%) and major access-site bleeding (n = 21; 1.7%). Most complications occurred within 1 day of the procedure. Within 30 days a total of 54 (4.3%) patients died, the cause being directly TAVI-related in 30 (2.4%). Of the patients who died from causes that were not directly TAVI-related, 14 (1.1%) had multiple hospital-acquired complications.ConclusionA variety of underlying mechanisms and causes form a wide spectrum of major threats affecting early safety in 11.7% of patients undergoing TAVI in a contemporary cohort of real-world patients.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01638-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: impact of pre-procedural FEops HEARTguide assessment on device size selection in borderline annulus size cases

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate device size selection in patients within the borderline annulus size range undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to assess if pre-procedural patient-specific computer simulation will lead to the selection of a different device size than standard of care.BackgroundIn TAVR, appropriate device sizing is imperative. In borderline annulus size cases no standardised technique for tailored device size selection is currently available. Pre-procedural patient-specific computer simulation can be used, predicting the risk for paravalvular leakage (PVL) and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI).MethodsIn this multicentre retrospective study, 140 patients in the borderline annulus size range were included. Hereafter, device size selection was left to the discretion of the operator. After TAVR, in 24 of the 140 patients, patient-specific computer simulation calculated the most appropriate device size expected to give the lowest risk for PVL and need for PPI. In these 24 patients, device size selection based on patient-specific computer simulation was compared with standard-of-care device size selection relying on a standardised matrix (Medtronic).ResultsIn a significant proportion of the 140 patients (26.4%) a different device size than recommended by the matrix was implanted. In 10 of the 24 patients (41.7%) in whom a computer simulation was performed, a different device size was recommended than by means of the matrix.ConclusionsDevice size selection in patients within the borderline annulus size range is still ambiguous. In these patients, patient-specific computer simulation is feasible and can contribute to a more tailored device size selection.     

The first multicentre study on coronary anomalies in the Netherlands: MuSCAT

BackgroundCurrent guidelines on coronary anomalies are primarily based on expert consensus and a limited number of trials. A gold standard for diagnosis and a consensus on the treatment strategy in this patient group are lacking, especially for patients with an anomalous origin of a coronary artery from the opposite sinus of Valsalva (ACAOS) with an interarterial course.AimTo provide evidence-substantiated recommendations for diagnostic work-up, treatment and follow-up of patients with anomalous coronary arteries.MethodsA clinical care pathway for patients with ACAOS was established by six Dutch centres. Prospectively included patients undergo work-up according to protocol using computed tomography (CT) angiography, ischaemia detection, echocardiography and coronary angiography with intracoronary measurements to assess anatomical and physiological characteristics of the ACAOS. Surgical and functional follow-up results are evaluated by CT angiography, ischaemia detection and a quality-of-life questionnaire. Patient inclusion for the first multicentre study on coronary anomalies in the Netherlands started in 2020 and will continue for at least 3 years with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. For patients with a right or left coronary artery originating from the pulmonary artery and coronary arteriovenous fistulas a registry is maintained.ResultsPrimary outcomes are: (cardiac) death, myocardial ischaemia attributable to the ACAOS, re-intervention after surgery and intervention after initially conservative treatment. The influence of work-up examinations on treatment choice is also evaluated.ConclusionsStructural evidence for the appropriate management of patients with coronary anomalies, especially (interarterial) ACAOS, is lacking. By means of a structured care pathway in a multicentre setting, we aim to provide an evidence-based strategy for the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of this patient group.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01556-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Aortic valve implantation-induced conduction block as a framework towards a uniform electrocardiographic definition of left bundle branch block

IntroductionNew-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (LBBB_AVI) implies a proximal pathogenesis of LBBB. This study compares electrocardiographic characteristics and concordance with LBBB definitions between LBBB_AVI and non-procedure-induced LBBB controls (LBBB_control).MethodsAll LBBB_AVI patients at Ghent University Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were enrolled in the study. LBBB_AVI patients were matched for age, sex, ischaemic heart disease and ejection fraction to LBBB_control patients in a 1:2 ratio. For inclusion, a non-strict LBBB definition was used (QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, QS or rS in V1, absence of Q waves in V5-6). Electrocardiograms were digitally analysed and classified according to three LBBB definitions: European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Strauss and American Heart Association (AHA).ResultsA total of 177 patients (59 LBBB_AVI and 118 LBBB_control) were enrolled in the study. LBBB_AVI patients had more lateral QRS notching/slurring (100% vs 85%, p = 0.001), included a higher percentage with a QRS duration ≥ 130 ms (98% vs 86%, p = 0.007) and had a less leftward oriented QRS axis (−15° vs −30°, p = 0.013) compared to the LBBB_control group. ESC and Strauss criteria were fulfilled in 100% and 95% of LBBB_AVI patients, respectively, but only 18% met the AHA criteria. In LBBB_control patients, concordance with LBBB definitions was lower than in the LBBB_AVI group: ESC 85% (p = 0.001), Strauss 68% (p < 0.001) and AHA 7% (p = 0.035). No differences in electrocardiographic characterisation or concordance with LBBB definitions were observed between LBBB_AVI and LBBB_control patients with lateral QRS notching/slurring.ConclusionNon-uniformity exists among current LBBB definitions concerning the detection of proximal LBBB. LBBB_AVI may provide a framework for more consensus on defining proximal LBBB.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01565-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Introduction of a new scoring tool to identify clinically stable heart failure patients

IntroductionHeart failure (HF) poses a burden on specialist care, making referral of clinically stable HF patients to primary care a desirable goal. However, a structured approach to guide patient referral is lacking.MethodsThe Maastricht Instability Score—Heart Failure (MIS-HF) questionnaire was developed to objectively stratify the clinical status of HF patients: patients with a low MIS-HF (0–2 points, indicating a stable clinical condition) were considered for treatment in primary care, whereas high scores (> 2 points) indicated the need for specialised care. The MIS-HF was evaluated in 637 consecutive HF patients presenting between 2015 and 2018 at Maastricht University Medical Centre.ResultsOf the 637 patients, 329 (52%) had a low score and 205 of these 329 (62%) patients were referred to primary care. The remaining 124 (38%) patients remained in secondary care. Of the 308 (48%) patients with a high score (> 2 points), 265 (86%) remained in secondary care and 41 (14%) were referred to primary care. The primary composite endpoint (mortality, cardiac hospital admissions) occurred more frequently in patients with a high compared to those with a low MIS-HF after 1 year of follow-up (29.2% vs 10.9%; odds ratio (OR) 3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.20–5.14). No significant difference in the composite endpoint (9.8% vs 12.9%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36–1.47) was found between patients with a low MIS-HF treated in primary versus secondary care.ConclusionThe MIS-HF questionnaire may improve referral policies, as it helps to identify HF patients that can safely be referred to primary care.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01654-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Clinical course of patients diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis in the Rotterdam area: insights from the AVARIJN study

Objective

To prospectively evaluate the clinical course of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and identify factors associated with treatment selection and patient outcome.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with severe AS in the Rotterdam area were included between June 2006 and May 2009. Patient characteristics, echocardiogram, brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and treatment strategy were assessed at baseline, and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Endpoints were aortic valve replacement (AVR) / transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and death.

Results

The study population comprised 191 patients, 132 were symptomatic and 59 asymptomatic at study entry. Two-year cumulative survival of symptomatic patients was 89.8 % (95 % CI 79.8–95.0 %) after AVR/TAVI and 72.6 % (95 % CI 59.7–82.0 %) with conservative treatment. Two-year cumulative survival of asymptomatic patients was 91.5 % (95 % CI 80.8–96.4 %). Two-year cumulative incidence of AVR/TAVI was 55.9 % (95 % CI 47.5–63.5 %) in symptomatic patients. Sixty-eight percent of asymptomatic patients developed symptoms, median time to symptoms was 13 months; AVR/TAVI cumulative incidence was 38.3 % (95 % CI 23.1–53.3 %). Elderly symptomatic patients with multiple comorbidities were more likely to receive conservative treatment.

Conclusions

In contemporary Dutch practice many symptomatic patients do not receive invasive treatment of severe AS. Two-thirds of asymptomatic patients develop symptoms within 2 years, illustrating the progressive nature of severe AS. Treatment optimisation may be achieved through careful individualised assessment in a multidisciplinary setting.     

Outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients over 85 years of age versus patients aged 85 and younger

IntroductionThe Dutch general population is aging rapidly. Many of these patient are fit and eligible for TAVR. However, studies on outcome in older versus younger patients are scant.Material and methodsA single-centre retrospective study comparing patients older and younger than age 85 on outcome.Results190 patients underwent TAVR: 136 were aged 85 or younger (U85), 54 were older than 85 (O85). The U85 group had more men (U85: 71 [52.2%] vs O85: 19 [35.2%]; p = 0.034), a higher incidence of diabetes (U85: 36 [26.5%] vs O85: 3 [5.6%]; p = 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (U85: 35 [25.7%] vs O85: 5 [9.3%]; p = 0.03) and a higher body mass index (U85: 27.5 [± 5.24] vs O85: 26 [± 3.78]; p = 0.027). In the O85 group there was a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (O85: 50.28 [± 15.32] ml/min vs U85: 65.25 [± 29.97] ml/min; p = 0.012). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (U85: 6 [4.4%] vs O85: 3 [5.6%]) and 1‑year mortality (U85 9 [6.6%] vs O85 3 [5.6%]) (p = 0.521). There was an equal amount of new onset permanent left bundle branch block (U85: 38 [27.9%] vs O85: 14 [25.9%]; p = 0.896) and permanent pacemaker implantation (U85: 28 [20.6%] vs O85: 28 [20.6%]; p = 0.748). There was no difference in bleeding events (p = 0.469), vascular complications (p = 0.195) or moderate/severe regurgitation (p = 0.972). The U85 group had a slightly longer admission duration (U85 6.29 [± 5.289] days vs O85 5.98 [± 3.328] days (p = 0.037)).ConclusionTAVR in patients over 85 years of age has excellent outcome, comparable to those aged 85 and younger.     

Family screening in patients with isolated bicuspid aortic valve: Restriction to those with aortic dilatation is not justified

AimTo determine the prevalence of undiagnosed bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and isolated aortic dilatation in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with isolated BAV and to explore the recurrence risk of BAV in different subgroups of probands with BAV. Recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines recommend family screening in patients with associated aortopathy only.MethodsDuring follow-up visits, patients with isolated BAV received a printed invitation for their FDRs advising cardiac screening.ResultsFrom 2012–2019, 257 FDRs of 118 adult BAV patients were screened, among whom 63 (53%) index patients had undergone aortic valve surgery (AVS), including concomitant aortic replacement in 25 (21%). Of the non-operated index patients, 31 (26%) had aortic dilatation (> 40 mm). Mean age of the FDRs was 48 years (range 4–83) and 42% were male. The FDR group comprised 20 parents, 103 siblings and 134 offspring. Among these FDRs, 12 (4.7%) had a previously undiagnosed BAV and 23 (8.9%) had an isolated aortic dilatation. FDRs of the probands with previous AVS (n = 147) had a risk ratio for BAV of 2.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–8.10). FDRs of the probands with BAV and repaired or unrepaired aortic dilatation (n = 127) had a risk ratio for BAV of 0.51 (95% CI 0.16–1.66).ConclusionScreening FDRs of patients with isolated BAV resulted in a reasonable yield of 14% new cases of BAV or isolated aortic dilatation. A trend towards an increased risk of BAV in FDRs was observed in the probands with previous AVS, whereas this risk seemed to be diminished in the probands with associated aortic dilatation. This latter finding does not support the restrictive ACC/AHA recommendation.     

Conservative initial postoperative anticoagulation strategy after HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device implantation

IntroductionAlthough anticoagulation therapy is mandated after implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), postoperative bleedings and reoperations occur relatively frequently and are associated with worse outcomes. We evaluated the use of a conservative postoperative anticoagulation protocol in patients implanted with a HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD.MethodsIn a single-centre retrospective analysis of postoperative outcomes after HM3 LVAD implantation, a standard (old) anticoagulation protocol (i.e. early, full-dose anticoagulation with low-molecular weight heparin and overlapping vitamin K antagonist) was compared with a new conservative anticoagulation protocol (i.e. slow initiation of vitamin K antagonists without overlapping heparin). Main outcomes were changes in international normalised ratio (INR), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), bleeding and/or tamponade events requiring reoperation, length of stay and adverse events.ResultsIn total, 73 patients (48 in old vs 25 in new protocol group) were evaluated. Mean age was 56 years (standard deviation 13) and most patients (78%) were males. Changes in INR and LDH in the first 14 days were similar in both groups (p = 0.50 and p = 0.997 for interaction, respectively). Number of bleeding/tamponade events requiring reoperation was lower in the new than in the old protocol group (4% vs 33%, p = 0.005). Postoperative 30-day mortality was similar, and we observed no thromboembolic events. Median (25th–75th percentiles) total length of postoperative hospital stay (27 (25–41) vs 21 (19–27) days, p < 0.001) and length of intensive care unit stay (5 (2–9) vs 2 (2–5) days, p = 0.022) were significantly shorter in the new protocol group.ConclusionThese retrospective data suggest that conservative slow initiation of anticoagulation therapy after HM3 LVAD implantation is associated with less bleeding/tamponade events requiring reoperation, a similar safety profile and a shorter duration of stay than the currently advised standard anticoagulation protocol.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01671-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

P2Y12 blocker monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention

For secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) antiplatelet therapy is essential. For patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) temporary dual antiplatelet platelet therapy (DAPT: aspirin combined with a P2Y12 blocker) is mandatory, but leads to more bleeding than single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. Therefore, to reduce bleeding after a PCI the duration of DAPT is usually kept as short as clinically acceptable; thereafter aspirin monotherapy is administered. Another option to reduce bleeding is to discontinue aspirin at the time of DAPT cessation and thereafter to administer P2Y12 blocker monotherapy. To date, five randomised trials have been published comparing DAPT with P2Y12 blocker monotherapy in 32,181 stented patients. Also two meta-analyses addressing this novel therapy have been presented. P2Y12 blocker monotherapy showed a 50–60% reduction in major bleeding when compared to DAPT without a significant increase in ischaemic outcomes, including stent thrombosis. This survey reviews the findings in the current literature concerning P2Y12 blocker monotherapy after PCI.     

Diagnostic approach in patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease: emphasising the role of the coronary function test

BackgroundMany patients with angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), also referred to as “Ischaemia with No Obstructive Coronary Arteries“ (INOCA). Coronary vascular dysfunction is the underlying cause of this ischaemic heart disease in as much as 59–89% of these patients, including the endotypes of coronary microvascular dysfunction and epicardial coronary vasospasm. Currently, a coronary function test (CFT) is the only comprehensive diagnostic modality to evaluate all endotypes of coronary vascular dysfunction in patients with INOCA.ObjectiveIn this paper we discuss the relevance of performing a CFT, provide considerations for patient selection, and present an overview of the procedure and its safety.MethodsWe reviewed the latest published data, guidelines and consensus documents, combined with a discussion of novel original data, to present this point of view.ResultsThe use of a CFT could lead to a more accurate and timely diagnosis of vascular dysfunction, identifies patients at risk for cardiovascular events, and enables stratified treatment which improves symptoms and quality of life. Current guidelines recommend considering a CFT in patients with INOCA and persistent symptoms. The safety of the procedure is comparable to that of a regular coronary angiography with physiological measurements. Non-invasive alternatives have limited diagnostic accuracy for the identification of coronary vascular dysfunction in patients with INOCA, and a regular coronary angiography and/or coronary computed tomography scan cannot establish the diagnosis.ConclusionsA complete CFT, including acetylcholine and adenosine tests, should be considered in patients with INOCA.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01532-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide analysis of the first COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands

IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on healthcare systems. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centres have adopted different triage systems and procedural strategies to serve highest-risk patients first and to minimise the burden on hospital logistics and personnel. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient selection, type of anaesthesia and outcomes after TAVI.MethodsWe used data from the Netherlands Heart Registration to examine all patients who underwent TAVI between March 2020 and July 2020 (COVID cohort), and between March 2019 and July 2019 (pre-COVID cohort). We compared patient characteristics, procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes.ResultsWe examined 2131 patients who underwent TAVI (1020 patients in COVID cohort, 1111 patients in pre-COVID cohort). EuroSCORE II was comparable between cohorts (COVID 4.5 ± 4.0 vs pre-COVID 4.6 ± 4.2, p = 0.356). The number of TAVI procedures under general anaesthesia was lower in the COVID cohort (35.2% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001). Incidences of stroke (COVID 2.7% vs pre-COVID 1.7%, p = 0.134), major vascular complications (2.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.170) and permanent pacemaker implantation (10.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.634) did not differ between cohorts. Thirty-day and 150-day mortality were comparable (2.8% vs 2.2%, p = 0.359 and 5.2% vs 5.2%, p = 0.993, respectively).ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, patient characteristics and outcomes after TAVI were not different than before the pandemic. This highlights the fact that TAVI procedures can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without an increased risk of complications or mortality.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01704-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Decision making in treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a survey study in Dutch heart centres

AimTo provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL].MethodsA questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment.ResultsAll 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10).ConclusionsDutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01676-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Changes in demographics,treatment and outcomes in a consecutive cohort who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between 2005 and 2020

IntroductionTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020.MethodsA single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3).ResultsOver time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively.ConclusionOver our 15 years’ experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles’ heel of TAVI.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01662-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Echocardiographic estimation of pulmonary hypertension in COVID-19 patients

IntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the cause of a devastating global pandemic and is not likely to be fully resolved in the near future. In most cases COVID-19 presents with mild symptoms, but in a minority of patients respiratory and multi-organ failure may ensue. Previous research has focused on the correlation between COVID-19 and a variety of cardiovascular complications. However, the effect of COVID-19 on pulmonary hypertension (PH) and correlated cardiovascular parameters has not been evaluated extensively.MethodsThis study was designed as a single-centre, semi-quantitative analysis. PH was considered to be present if echocardiographic measurements estimated right ventricular systolic pressure at rest to be 36 mm Hg or higher in combination with indirect indicators of right ventricular overload.ResultsIn total, 101 patients (67.3% male) were included in this study, with a mean age of 66 years (range 23–98 years). PH was diagnosed by echocardiographic estimation in 30 patients (29.7%). Echocardiographically estimated PH (eePH) was not correlated with a diagnosis of heart failure or pulmonary embolism. Mortality was significantly higher among COVID-19 patients with eePH (p = 0.015). In all 10 of 20 surviving eePH patients in whom echocardiographic follow-up was obtained, echocardiographic estimations of pulmonary pressures showed a significant decrease after a median of 144 ± 72 days.ConclusioneePH is frequently observed in COVID-19 patients and is correlated with increased mortality. COVID-19-related eePH appears to be reversible after recovery. Vigilant attention and a low threshold for performance of echocardiography in COVID-19 patients seems warranted, as eePH may be applicable as a prognostic risk factor.     

Better survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement by process improvements

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the effects on procedural, 30-day, and 1‑year all-cause mortality by a newly introduced quality improvement strategy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsIn October 2015, a coherent set of quality improving interventions with respect to patient geriatric screening, general diagnostic examination and safety of the procedure was implemented at a single centre in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing TAVR in 2013–2018 were included for retrospective analysis. Mortality was assessed in the pre-quality improvement strategy cohort (January 2013 to October 2015; cohort A) and in the post-quality improvement strategy cohort (November 2015 to December 2018; cohort B). Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of patient and procedural characteristics on the results of the quality improvement strategy in terms of procedural, 30-day, and 1‑year all-cause mortality.ResultsIn total, 806 patients were analysed with 274 patients in cohort A and 532 patients in cohort B. After introduction of the quality improvement strategy, procedural (4.4% to 1.3%, p < 0.01), 30-day (8.4% to 2.7%, p < 0.01) and 1‑year (16.4% to 8.5%, p < 0.01) all-cause mortality significantly decreased. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the quality improvement strategy also significantly reduced 30-day (odds ratio [OR] 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–0.42) and 1‑year (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24–0.61) all-cause mortality if corrected for patient characteristics.ConclusionStructural meetings on evaluation of outcomes highlight potential areas for improvement and subsequent outcome-based quality improvement initiatives can result in lower procedural, 30-day, and 1‑year all-cause mortality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01526-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.