| Literature DB >> 32212825 |
Taku Inohara1,2, Sreekanth Vemulapalli1,3, Shun Kohsaka, Fumiaki Yashima1, Yusuke Watanabe4, Shinichi Shirai5, Norio Tada6, Motoharu Araki7, Toru Naganuma8, Futoshi Yamanaka9, Hiroshi Ueno10, Minoru Tabata11, Kazuki Mizutani12, Akihiro Higashimori13, Kensuke Takagi14, Masanori Yamamoto15,16, Hideyuki Shimizu17, Keiichi Fukuda1, Kentaro Hayashida1.
Abstract
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is widely used; however, its appropriateness is unknown. We sought to investigate the appropriateness of TAVR. Methods and Results We assigned appropriateness ratings to patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis between October 2013 and May 2017 at 14 Japanese hospitals participating in the optimized transcatheter valvular intervention-transcatheter aortic valve implantation registry according to the US appropriate use criteria for treating severe aortic stenosis. To account for the influence of uncaptured variables on appropriate use criteria ratings, we initially assigned them to a best-case scenario where they were assumed to classify a case to the most appropriate clinical scenario and then to a worst-case scenario where assumed least appropriate. Overall proportion of TAVRs classified as appropriate, maybe appropriate, or rarely appropriate was assessed. In addition, extent of hospital-level variation in rarely appropriate procedures was evaluated. Of 2036 TAVRs (median age [25th, 75th]: 85.0 years [81.0-88.0]; 70.5% female the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score: 6.2% [4.4-8.9]), in the best-case scenario, 177 (8.7%) were not successfully mapped, and 1580 (77.6%) were classified as appropriate, 180 (8.8%) as maybe appropriate, 99 (4.9%) as rarely appropriate, respectively. In the worst-case scenario, the rate of rarely appropriate increased to 6.8%. The majority of rarely appropriate TAVRs was performed in patients with moderate to severe dementia (defined as mini-mental status examination of ≤17), bicuspid aortic valve, or anticipated life expectancy <1 year. There was substantial variation in the proportion of rarely appropriate TAVR across hospitals (median rate of rarely appropriate: 4.9% [3.8-6.6] in the best-case scenario, P<0.001; 6.5% [5.6-8.6] in the worst-case scenario, P<0.001). Conclusions In clinical practice, the proportion of rarely appropriate TAVRs ranged from 4.9% to 6.8% with substantial institutional variation. Our study elucidates common clinical scenarios deemed rarely appropriate and clarifies the potential targets of quality improvement. Registration URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Unique identifier: UMIN000020423.Entities:
Keywords: aortic valve; bicuspid aortic valve; dementia; life expectancy; transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Year: 2020 PMID: 32212825 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes ISSN: 1941-7713