OBJECTIVES: Introduction of hybrid techniques, such as transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), requires skills that a heart team must master to achieve technical efficiency: the technical performance learning curve. To date, the learning curve for TA-TAVR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated the rate at which technical performance improved, assessed change in occurrence of adverse events in relation to technical performance, and determined whether adverse events after TA-TAVR were linked to acquiring technical performance efficiency (the learning curve). METHODS: From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 patients, average age 85.0 ± 6.4 years, underwent TA-TAVR in the PARTNER-I trial. Learning curves were defined by institution-specific patient sequence number using nonlinear mixed modeling. RESULTS: Mean procedure time decreased from 131 to 116 minutes within 30 cases (P = .06) and device success increased to 90% by case 45 (P = .0007). Within 30 days, 354 patients experienced a major adverse event (stroke in 29, death in 96), with possibly decreased complications over time (P ∼ .08). Although longer procedure time was associated with more adverse events (P < .0001), these events were associated with change in patient risk profile, not the technical performance learning curve (P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for TA-TAVR was 30 to 45 procedures performed, and technical efficiency was achieved without compromising patient safety. Although fewer patients are now undergoing TAVR via nontransfemoral access, understanding TA-TAVR learning curves and their relationship with outcomes is important as the field moves toward next-generation devices, such as those to replace the mitral valve, delivered via the left ventricular apex.
OBJECTIVES: Introduction of hybrid techniques, such as transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), requires skills that a heart team must master to achieve technical efficiency: the technical performance learning curve. To date, the learning curve for TA-TAVR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated the rate at which technical performance improved, assessed change in occurrence of adverse events in relation to technical performance, and determined whether adverse events after TA-TAVR were linked to acquiring technical performance efficiency (the learning curve). METHODS: From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 patients, average age 85.0 ± 6.4 years, underwent TA-TAVR in the PARTNER-I trial. Learning curves were defined by institution-specific patient sequence number using nonlinear mixed modeling. RESULTS: Mean procedure time decreased from 131 to 116 minutes within 30 cases (P = .06) and device success increased to 90% by case 45 (P = .0007). Within 30 days, 354 patients experienced a major adverse event (stroke in 29, death in 96), with possibly decreased complications over time (P ∼ .08). Although longer procedure time was associated with more adverse events (P < .0001), these events were associated with change in patient risk profile, not the technical performance learning curve (P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for TA-TAVR was 30 to 45 procedures performed, and technical efficiency was achieved without compromising patient safety. Although fewer patients are now undergoing TAVR via nontransfemoral access, understanding TA-TAVR learning curves and their relationship with outcomes is important as the field moves toward next-generation devices, such as those to replace the mitral valve, delivered via the left ventricular apex.
Authors: Giuseppe D'Ancona; Miralem Pasic; Axel Unbehaun; Stephan Dreysse; Thorsten Drews; Semih Buz; Marian Kukucka; Alexander Mladenow; Roland Hetzer; Burkhardt Seifert Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-09-29 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jörg Kempfert; Ardawan Rastan; David Holzhey; Axel Linke; Gerhard Schuler; Arnaud van Linden; Johannes Blumenstein; Friedrich Wilhelm Mohr; Thomas Walther Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ronen Gurvitch; Edgar L Tay; Namal Wijesinghe; J Ye; Fabian Nietlispach; David A Wood; Samuel Lichtenstein; Anson Cheung; John G Webb Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adil H Al Kindi; Khaled F Salhab; Eric E Roselli; Samir Kapadia; E Murat Tuzcu; Lars G Svensson Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Jason Aguirre; Robin Waskowski; Kanhaiya Poddar; Samir Kapadia; Amar Krishnaswamy; Rebecca McCullough; Stephanie Mick; Jose L Navia; Eric E Roselli; Murat E Tuzcu; Joseph F Sabik; Bruce W Lytle; Lars G Svensson Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Oluseun Alli; Charanjit S Rihal; Rakesh M Suri; Kevin L Greason; Ron Waksman; Sa'ar Minha; Rebecca Torguson; Augusto D Pichard; Michael Mack; Lars G Svensson; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Ashley M Lowry; John Ehrlinger; E Murat Tuzcu; Vinod H Thourani; Raj Makkar; Eugene H Blackstone; Martin B Leon; David Holmes Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Laura Besola; Anson Cheung; Jian Ye; Myriam Akodad; Andrew Chatfield; Gnalini Sathananthan; Robert Moss; John Webb Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-09
Authors: Jayendrakumar S Patel; Amar Krishnaswamy; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; Stephanie Mick; Samir R Kapadia Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.931