Literature DB >> 29037446

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Futility Risk Model Development and Validation Among Treated Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

Oren Zusman1, Ran Kornowski2, Guy Witberg1, Adi Lador1, Katia Orvin1, Amos Levi1, Abid Assali1, Hana Vaknin-Assa1, Ram Sharony3, Yaron Shapira1, Alexander Sagie1, Uri Landes1.   

Abstract

Risk-benefit assessment for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still evolving. A sizeable group of patients do not fully benefit from intervention despite a technically successful procedure. All patients who underwent TAVI with device success and with no Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined complications were included. Various demographic data, clinical details, and echocardiographic findings were examined. The outcome was defined as 1-year composite of mortality, stroke, lack of functional-class improvement (by New York Heart Association class), and readmissions (≥1 month after the procedure). Logistic regression was used to fit the prediction model. We used a 10-fold cross-validation to validate our results. Of 543 patients, 435 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 82 (±6.5) years, 43% were men, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.6 (±4.7). At 1 year, 66 of 435 patients (15%) experienced the study end point. The final logistic regression model included diabetes, baseline New York Heart Association functional class, diastolic dysfunction, need for diuretics, mean gradient, hemoglobin level, and creatinine level. The area under the curve was 0.73 and was reduced to 0.71 after validation, with a 97% specificity using a single cutoff. Dividing to low-, medium-, and high-risk groups for futility produced a corresponding prevalence of 6%, 19%, and 59% futility. A web application for the prediction model was developed and provided. In conclusion, this prediction score may provide an important insight and may facilitate identification of patients who, despite a technically successful and uncomplicated procedure, have risk that may outweigh the benefit of a contemplated TAVI.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29037446     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  2 in total

1.  Can Clinical Predictive Models Identify Patients Who Should Not Receive TAVR? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Benjamin S Wessler; Andrew R Weintraub; James E Udelson; David M Kent
Journal:  Struct Heart       Date:  2020-07-09

2.  Guideline-defined futility or patient-reported outcomes to assess treatment success after TAVI: what to use? Results from a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Martijn Stefan van Mourik; Jeroen Vendrik; Mohammad Abdelghani; Floortje van Kesteren; Jose P S Henriques; Antoine H G Driessen; Joanna J Wykrzykowska; Robbert J de Winter; Jan J Piek; Jan G Tijssen; Karel T Koch; Jan Baan; M Marije Vis
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2018-09-23
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.