The delay between the indication and the embodiment of the procedure decrease the effectiveness of percutaneous aortic valve replacement

Original title: Impact of wait times on the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) in severe aortic valve disease: a discrete event simulation model. Reference: Wijeysundera HC et al. Can J Cardiol. 2014; Epub ahead of print.

Once patients are accepted for percutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the higher the expected for the valve, the greater the risk of dying by peri-procedure or within a year.

In the PARTNER A study that used the Edwards Sapien balloon expandable valve a mathematical model to simulate the death risk was applied, according to the time elapsed (from 10 days to 180 days) while completing diagnostic studies to accept it as TAVR candidate and the time at which the procedure was performed. The daily risk of dying both peri-procedure or within one year post implant, increased progressively with longer waiting time, showing a difference of up to 27% between the longest and shortest waiting time for inoperable patients (10 day waiting time 1.9% risk, 60 days 10.7%, and 180 days 28.9%) and up to 20% of difference in high-risk patients (10 days 2.2% risk, 60 days 8.1% and 180 days 22.4%).

In contrast to this, waiting time and death risk were relatively stable for those who received medical treatment or surgery, respectively. In the inoperable cohort, most patients receiving TAVR (99.2%) had lower mortality than those receiving medical treatment beyond what they had to wait for the procedure. In the high-risk cohort, when the waiting time exceeded 60 days, patients receiving TAVR showed higher mortality than those receiving surgery. With longer waits for 180 days, non-inferiority between TAVR and proven surgery in PARTNER A study missed almost half of the patients.

Conclusion

Modest increases in waiting time to percutaneous aortic valve replacement have a significant impact on mortality in the inoperable cohort as well as in the high-risk cohort.

Editorial comment

The findings of this study are particularly important for those patients who might be candidates for surgery so as to TVAR, since the loss of time could tip the balance in favour of surgery. 

SOLACI.ORG

More articles by this author

Contemporary Challenges in Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Updated Approach to Device Embolization

Even though percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is generally safe, device embolization – with 0 to 1.5% global incidence – is still a...

Cardiac Remodeling After Percutaneous ASD Closure: Should It Be Immediate or Progressive?

Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a common congenital heart disease that generates a left-to-right shunt, leading to right-side chamber overload and a risk of...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

COILSEAL: Use of Coils in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Useful for Complication Management?

The use of coils as vascular closing tool has been steadily expanding beyond its traditional role in neuroradiology into coronary territory, where it remains...

Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis in Small Vessels with Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

Coronary artery disease (CAD) in smaller epicardial vessels occurs in 30% to 67% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and poses particular technical challenges....

Contemporary Challenges in Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Updated Approach to Device Embolization

Even though percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is generally safe, device embolization – with 0 to 1.5% global incidence – is still a...