Search

BACKGROUND We compared the outcomes and adverse events of TAVI patients based on the discharge and long-term antiplatelet or anticoagulant treatment regimens (single antiplatelet [SAPT] vs. dual antiplatelet [DAPT] vs. anticoagulation [OAC] vs. no treatment [NT]). METHODS The outcome of 532 consecutive patients treated with TAVI was evaluated. As the main study endpoint, the 1-year all-cause mortality was chosen to compare the different discharge treatment regimens and the 3-year all-cause mortality to compare the different long-term treatment regimens. The secondary endpoints were adverse events as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-II. RESULTS One-year survival after TAVI was highest amongst patients treated with DAPT compared to SAPT (P

Background We investigated the impact of an elevated plasma volume status (PVS) in patients undergoing TAVI on early clinical safety and mortality and assessed the prognostic utility of PVS for outcome prediction. Materials and methods We retrospectively calculated the PVS in 652 patients undergoing TAVI between 2009 and 2018 at two centres. They were then categorized into two groups depending on their preoperative PVS (PVS ≤−4; n = 257 vs PVS>−4; n = 379). Relative PVS was derived by subtracting calculated ideal (iPVS = c × weight) from actual plasma volume (aPVS = (1 − haematocrit) × (a + (b × weight in kg)). Results The need for renal replacement therapy (1 (0.4%) vs 17 (4.5%); P = .001), re‐operation for noncardiac reasons (9 (3.5%) vs 32 (8.4%); P = .003), re‐operation for bleeding (9 (3.5%) vs 27 (7.1%); P = .037) and major bleeding (14 (5.4%) vs 37 (9.8%); P = .033) were significantly higher in patients with a PVS>−4. The composite 30‐day early safety endpoint (234 (91.1%) vs 314 (82.8%); P = .002) confirms that an increased preoperative PVS is associated with a worse overall outcome after TAVI. Conclusions An elevated PVS (>−4) as a marker for congestion is associated with significantly worse outcome after TAVI and therefore should be incorporated in preprocedural risk stratification.

BACKGROUND While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic valve stenosis, wearable health-monitoring devices are gradually transforming digital patient care. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to develop a simple, efficient, and economical method for preprocedural frailty assessment based on parameters measured by a wearable health-monitoring device. METHODS In this prospective study, we analyzed data of 50 consecutive patients with mean (SD) age of 77.5 (5.1) years and a median (IQR) European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) II of 3.3 (4.1) undergoing either transfemoral or transapical TAVR between 2017 and 2018. Every patient was fitted with a wrist-worn health-monitoring device (Garmin Vivosmart 3) for 1 week prior to the procedure. Twenty different parameters were measured, and threshold levels for the 3 most predictive categories (ie, step count, heart rate, and preprocedural stress) were calculated. Patients were assigned 1 point per category for exceeding the cut-off value and were then classified into 4 stages (no, borderline, moderate, and severe frailty). Furthermore, the FItness-tracker assisted Frailty-Assessment Score (FIFA score) was compared with the scores of the preprocedural gait speed category derived from the 6-minute walk test (GSC-6MWT) and the Edmonton Frail Scale classification (EFS-C). The primary study endpoint was hospital mortality. RESULTS The overall preprocedural stress level (P=.02), minutes of high stress per day (P=.02), minutes of rest per day (P=.045), and daily heart rate maximum (P=.048) as single parameters were the strongest predictors of hospital mortality. When comparing the different frailty scores, the FIFA score demonstrated the greatest predictive power for hospital mortality (FIFA area under the curve [AUC] 0.844, CI 0.656-1.000; P=.048; GSC-6MWT AUC 0.671, CI 0.487-0.855; P=.42; EFS-C AUC 0.636, CI 0.254-1.000; P=.44). CONCLUSIONS This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the strong predictive performance of the FIFA score compared to that of the conventional frailty assessments.

Background While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic valve stenosis, wearable health-monitoring devices are gradually transforming digital patient care. Objective The aim of this study was to develop a simple, efficient, and economical method for preprocedural frailty assessment based on parameters measured by a wearable health-monitoring device. Methods In this prospective study, we analyzed data of 50 consecutive patients with mean (SD) age of 77.5 (5.1) years and a median (IQR) European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) II of 3.3 (4.1) undergoing either transfemoral or transapical TAVR between 2017 and 2018. Every patient was fitted with a wrist-worn health-monitoring device (Garmin Vivosmart 3) for 1 week prior to the procedure. Twenty different parameters were measured, and threshold levels for the 3 most predictive categories (ie, step count, heart rate, and preprocedural stress) were calculated. Patients were assigned 1 point per category for exceeding the cut-off value and were then classified into 4 stages (no, borderline, moderate, and severe frailty). Furthermore, the FItness-tracker assisted Frailty-Assessment Score (FIFA score) was compared with the scores of the preprocedural gait speed category derived from the 6-minute walk test (GSC-6MWT) and the Edmonton Frail Scale classification (EFS-C). The primary study endpoint was hospital mortality. Results The overall preprocedural stress level (P=.02), minutes of high stress per day (P=.02), minutes of rest per day (P=.045), and daily heart rate maximum (P=.048) as single parameters were the strongest predictors of hospital mortality. When comparing the different frailty scores, the FIFA score demonstrated the greatest predictive power for hospital mortality (FIFA area under the curve [AUC] 0.844, CI 0.656-1.000; P=.048; GSC-6MWT AUC 0.671, CI 0.487-0.855; P=.42; EFS-C AUC 0.636, CI 0.254-1.000; P=.44). Conclusions This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the strong predictive performance of the FIFA score compared to that of the conventional frailty assessments.