Harindra C Wijeysundera1, William W L Wong2, Maria C Bennell3, Stephen E Fremes3, Sam Radhakrishnan3, Mark Peterson4, Dennis T Ko5. 1. Schulich Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: harindra.wijeysundera@sunnybrook.ca. 2. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Schulich Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Cardiac Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Schulich Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as the primary treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are high-risk surgical candidates or inoperable. We used mathematical simulation models to estimate the hypothetical effectiveness of TAVR with increasing wait times. METHODS: We applied discrete event modelling, using data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trials. We compared TAVR with medical therapy in the inoperable cohort, and compared TAVR to conventional aortic valve surgery in the high-risk cohort. One-year mortality and wait-time deaths were calculated in different scenarios by varying TAVR wait times from 10 days to 180 days, while maintaining a constant wait time for surgery at a mean of 15.6 days. RESULTS: In the inoperable cohort, the 1-year mortality for medical therapy was 50%. When the TAVR wait time was 10 days, the TAVR wait-time mortality was 1.9% with a 1-year mortality of 31.5%. TAVR wait-time deaths increased to 28.9% with a 180-day wait, with a 1-year mortality of 41.4%. In the high-risk cohort, the wait-time deaths and 1-year mortality for the surgical patients were 2.5% and 27%, respectively. The TAVR wait-time deaths increased from 2.2% with a 10-day wait to 22.4% with a 180-day wait, and a corresponding increase in 1-year mortality from 24.5% to 32.6%. Mortality with TAVR exceeded surgery when TAVR wait times exceeded 60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Modest increases in TAVR wait times have a substantial effect on the effectiveness of TAVR in inoperable patients and high-risk surgical candidates.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as the primary treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are high-risk surgical candidates or inoperable. We used mathematical simulation models to estimate the hypothetical effectiveness of TAVR with increasing wait times. METHODS: We applied discrete event modelling, using data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trials. We compared TAVR with medical therapy in the inoperable cohort, and compared TAVR to conventional aortic valve surgery in the high-risk cohort. One-year mortality and wait-time deaths were calculated in different scenarios by varying TAVR wait times from 10 days to 180 days, while maintaining a constant wait time for surgery at a mean of 15.6 days. RESULTS: In the inoperable cohort, the 1-year mortality for medical therapy was 50%. When the TAVR wait time was 10 days, the TAVR wait-time mortality was 1.9% with a 1-year mortality of 31.5%. TAVR wait-time deaths increased to 28.9% with a 180-day wait, with a 1-year mortality of 41.4%. In the high-risk cohort, the wait-time deaths and 1-year mortality for the surgical patients were 2.5% and 27%, respectively. The TAVR wait-time deaths increased from 2.2% with a 10-day wait to 22.4% with a 180-day wait, and a corresponding increase in 1-year mortality from 24.5% to 32.6%. Mortality with TAVR exceeded surgery when TAVR wait times exceeded 60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Modest increases in TAVR wait times have a substantial effect on the effectiveness of TAVR in inoperable patients and high-risk surgical candidates.
Authors: Peter Cram; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Ko; Bruce E Landon; Bruce Hall; Timothy D Jackson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: John K Peel; Rafael Neves Miranda; David Naimark; Graham Woodward; Mamas A Mamas; Mina Madan; Harindra C Wijeysundera Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Gabby Elbaz-Greener; Brianne Yarranton; Feng Qiu; David A Wood; John G Webb; Stephen E Fremes; Sam Radhakrishnan; Harindra C Wijeysundera Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Arpad Lux; Leo F Veenstra; Suzanne Kats; Wim Dohmen; Jos G Maessen; Arnoud W J van 't Hof; Bart Maesen Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Houman Khalili; Hamza A Lodhi; Michael Luna; Rani K Hasan; Subhash Banerjee; James E Harvey; Timothy Byrne; George S Hanzel; Amr E Abbas; Nirmanmoh Bhatia; Satya S Shreenivas; Adithya Mathews; Priya Bansal; Ramez Morcos; Brijeshwar Maini Journal: Struct Heart Date: 2022-03-21
Authors: Kayley A Henning; Mithunan Ravindran; Feng Qiu; Neil P Fam; Tej N Seth; Peter C Austin; Harindra C Wijeysundera Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-05
Authors: Richard P Steeds; Matthias Lutz; Jeetendra Thambyrajah; Antonio Serra; Eberhard Schulz; Jiri Maly; Marco Aiello; Tanja K Rudolph; Guy Lloyd; Alessandro Santo Bortone; Karl Eugen Hauptmann; Alberto Clerici; Georg Delle-Karth; Johannes Rieber; Ciro Indolfi; Massimo Mancone; Loic Belle; Alexander Lauten; Martin Arnold; Berto J Bouma; Cornelia Deutsch; Jana Kurucova; Martin Thoenes; Peter Bramlage; Norbert Frey; David Messika-Zeitoun Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 5.501