TY - JOUR
T1 - Temporal trends in patient referral for Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reasons for exclusion at a high-volume Center in the United States
AU - Buchanan, Kyle D.
AU - Rogers, Toby
AU - Alraies, M. Chadi
AU - Steinvil, Arie
AU - Koifman, Edward
AU - Escárcega, Ricardo O.
AU - Tavil-Shatelyan, Arpi
AU - Salmon, Joelle
AU - Gai, Jiaxiang
AU - Xu, Linzhi
AU - Torguson, Rebecca
AU - Okubagzi, Petros
AU - Pichard, Augusto
AU - Ben-Dor, Itsik
AU - Satler, Lowell F.
AU - Waksman, Ron
N1 - Funding Information:
If the patient was deferred for TAVR upon initial evaluation, reasons for exclusion were recorded in the database. Patients were considered excluded from TAVR if they received a treatment assignment of medical therapy or BAV. Patients diverted to surgical valve replacement were analyzed separately. Reasons for exclusion were subsequently divided into categories based on similar characteristics, which included cardiac, vascular access, cerebrovascular, critical illness, lack of indication, and other. Exclusion for “lack of indication” was defined as patients with echocardiography parameters who did not qualify for trial specifications or those who did not meet definitions of severe AS as outlined by the AHA/ACC 2014 Valve Guidelines, had a surgical list too low for TAVR consideration, or were asymptomatic. In patients who were asymptomatic, they further did not meet any other specific indications for valve replacement as defined by the AHA/ACC 2014 Valve Guidelines. 16 Many patients were deferred prior to complete evaluation by the Heart Team, as previously mentioned, and reasons for deferral were also recorded in the database when available. Analysis was performed using prespecified groups and based on year of referral. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of MedStar Washington Hospital Center. Edwards Lifesciences provided partial funding to support this work. The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study, all study analyses, and the drafting and editing of the paper and its final contents.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2018/2/1
Y1 - 2018/2/1
N2 - Background Clinical indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and elements of the implantation procedure, including delivery system miniaturization and novel access options, have evolved over time. The reasons patients are excluded from TAVR also have changed. The impact of these changes on patient referral for and exclusion from TAVR is unknown. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients referred to our center for TAVR from January 2010 to August 2016 to evaluate reasons for patient exclusion. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial screening date for trends in demographics and exclusion: Group 1, 2010–2012; Group 2, 2012–2014; Group 3, 2014 to August 1, 2016. Annual trends for patient exclusion from TAVR were assessed. Results One thousand nine hundred fifty-three patients were referred and underwent screening for TAVR. The rates at which patients were referred for TAVR were 23.8, 25.9, and 24.5 per month in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Rate of patient exclusion from TAVR decreased from 68% in Group 1 to 38% in Group 3 (P <.001). The largest percentage of patients (29.4%) were initially excluded from TAVR for cardiac reasons, but this trend has decreased over time. Twenty-five percent are excluded for lack of procedural indication. Exclusion from TAVR for vascular access reasons decreased from 7.9% in 2010 to 1.0% in 2016 (P =.017). Conclusions Referral numbers have been robust since TAVR became available. The percentage of patients excluded from TAVR has decreased over time. Patients are most commonly excluded from TAVR for concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD), asymptomatic severe AS, moderate AS, or non-cardiac critical illness. Patients with CAD and those with asymptomatic severe AS or moderate AS should be a focus for continued research in TAVR.
AB - Background Clinical indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and elements of the implantation procedure, including delivery system miniaturization and novel access options, have evolved over time. The reasons patients are excluded from TAVR also have changed. The impact of these changes on patient referral for and exclusion from TAVR is unknown. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients referred to our center for TAVR from January 2010 to August 2016 to evaluate reasons for patient exclusion. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial screening date for trends in demographics and exclusion: Group 1, 2010–2012; Group 2, 2012–2014; Group 3, 2014 to August 1, 2016. Annual trends for patient exclusion from TAVR were assessed. Results One thousand nine hundred fifty-three patients were referred and underwent screening for TAVR. The rates at which patients were referred for TAVR were 23.8, 25.9, and 24.5 per month in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Rate of patient exclusion from TAVR decreased from 68% in Group 1 to 38% in Group 3 (P <.001). The largest percentage of patients (29.4%) were initially excluded from TAVR for cardiac reasons, but this trend has decreased over time. Twenty-five percent are excluded for lack of procedural indication. Exclusion from TAVR for vascular access reasons decreased from 7.9% in 2010 to 1.0% in 2016 (P =.017). Conclusions Referral numbers have been robust since TAVR became available. The percentage of patients excluded from TAVR has decreased over time. Patients are most commonly excluded from TAVR for concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD), asymptomatic severe AS, moderate AS, or non-cardiac critical illness. Patients with CAD and those with asymptomatic severe AS or moderate AS should be a focus for continued research in TAVR.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035813769&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.10.019
DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.10.019
M3 - Article
C2 - 29421017
AN - SCOPUS:85035813769
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 196
SP - 74
EP - 81
JO - American Heart Journal
JF - American Heart Journal
ER -