Due to the aging and increasingly complex nature of our patients, frailty has become a high-priority theme in cardiovascular medicine. Despite the recognition of frailty as a pivotal element in the ...evaluation of older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD), there has yet to be a road map to facilitate its adoption in routine clinical practice. Thus, we sought to synthesize the existing body of evidence and offer a perspective on how to integrate frailty into clinical practice. Frailty is a biological syndrome that reflects a state of decreased physiological reserve and vulnerability to stressors. Upward of 20 frailty assessment tools have been developed, with most tools revolving around the core phenotypic domains of frailty—slow walking speed, weakness, inactivity, exhaustion, and shrinking—as measured by physical performance tests and questionnaires. The prevalence of frailty ranges from 10% to 60%, depending on the CVD burden, as well as the tool and cutoff chosen to define frailty. Epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated that frailty carries a relative risk of >2 for mortality and morbidity across a spectrum of stable CVD, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, and surgical and transcatheter interventions. Frailty contributes valuable prognostic insights incremental to existing risk models and assists clinicians in defining optimal care pathways for their patients. Interventions designed to improve outcomes in frail elders with CVD such as multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation are being actively tested. Ultimately, frailty should not be viewed as a reason to withhold care but rather as a means of delivering it in a more patient-centered fashion.
Abstract
Aims
The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for ...transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.
Methods and results
Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.
Conclusions
Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.
Graphical Abstract
Abstract Background Few studies have examined the impact of novel indices of comorbidity, frailty, and disability on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Objectives This ...study analyzed patients from the Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial program to develop a simple scoring system that incorporates standard and novel predictor variables. Methods A multidisciplinary heart team used objective criteria, such as The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM), and subjective criteria to assess patients’ eligibility for TAVR. The analysis included 3,687 patients randomly divided (2:1) into a derivation cohort (n = 2,482) and a validation cohort (n = 1,205). The study evaluated predictors of all-cause death, which were used to calculate a risk score for each patient. Results The overall mortality rate was 5.8% at 30 days and 22.8% at 1 year. Home oxygen use, assisted living, albumin levels <3.3 g/dl, and age >85 years predicted death at 30 days. Home oxygen use, albumin levels <3.3 g/dl, falls in the past 6 months, STS PROM score >7%, and severe (≥5) Charlson comorbidity score predicted death at 1 year. A simple scoring system created on the basis of these multivariable predictors effectively stratified risk at 30 days and 1 year into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk subsets. This score showed a 3-fold difference in mortality rates for the low-risk and high-risk subsets at 30 days (3.6% and 10.9%, respectively) and 1 year (12.3% and 36.6%, respectively). The 1-year mortality model was more stable than the 30-day model (C-statistics: 0.79 vs. 0.75). Conclusions A simple score dominated by novel predictors of outcome effectively stratified early and late mortality rates in extreme-risk and high-risk patients and may assist in selecting appropriate candidates for TAVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902 )
The CoreValve U.S. Pivotal High Risk Trial was the first randomized trial to show superior 1-year mortality of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve ...replacement (SAVR) among high operative mortality–risk patients.
The authors sought to compare TAVR to SAVR for mid-term 5-year outcomes of safety, performance, and durability.
Surgical high-risk patients were randomized (1:1) to TAVR with the self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR. VARC-1 (Valve Academic Research Consortium I) definitions were applied. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined as a mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg or a change in gradient ≥20 mm Hg or new severe aortic regurgitation. Five-year follow-up was planned.
A total of 797 patients were randomized at 45 U.S. centers, of whom 750 underwent an attempted implant (TAVR = 391, SAVR = 359). The overall mean age was 83 years, and the STS score was 7.4%. All-cause mortality rates at 5 years were 55.3% for TAVR and 55.4% for SAVR. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in mortality. Major stroke rates were 12.3% for TAVR and 13.2% for SAVR. Mean aortic valve gradients were 7.1 ± 3.6 mm Hg for TAVR and 10.9 ± 5.7 mm Hg for SAVR. No clinically significant valve thrombosis was observed. Freedom from severe SVD was 99.2% for TAVR and 98.3% for SAVR (p = 0.32), and freedom from valve reintervention was 97.0% for TAVR and 98.9% for SAVR (p = 0.04). A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 33.0% of TAVR and 19.8% of SAVR patients at 5 years.
This study shows similar mid-term survival and stroke rates in high-risk patients following TAVR or SAVR. Severe structural valve deterioration and valve reinterventions were uncommon. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)
Display omitted
Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative ...outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk.
We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.
A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval Bayesian analysis for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group.
TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .).
Objectives This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at extreme risk for surgery. ...Background Untreated severe aortic stenosis is a progressive disease with a poor prognosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is a potentially effective therapy. Methods We performed a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized investigation evaluating the safety and efficacy of self-expanding TAVR in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with prohibitive risks for surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months, which was compared with a pre-specified objective performance goal (OPG). Results A total of 41 sites in the United States recruited 506 patients, of whom 489 underwent attempted treatment with the CoreValve THV. The rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months was 26.0% (upper 2-sided 95% confidence bound: 29.9%) versus 43.0% with the OPG (p < 0.0001). Individual 30-day and 12-month events included all-cause mortality (8.4% and 24.3%, respectively) and major stroke (2.3% and 4.3%, respectively). Procedural events at 30 days included life-threatening/disabling bleeding (12.7%), major vascular complications (8.2%), and need for permanent pacemaker placement (21.6%). The frequency of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was lower 12 months after self-expanding TAVR (4.2%) than at discharge (10.7%; p = 0.004 for paired analysis). Conclusions TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis was safe and effective in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at prohibitive risk for surgical valve replacement. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902 )
Abstract
Aims
We sought to identify the prevalence and related outcomes of frail individuals undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Methods ...and results
Patients aged 65 and older were included in the study if they had at least one procedural code for transcatheter mitral valve repair or TAVR between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Provider and Review database. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score, an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) claims-based score, was used to identify frailty and the primary outcome was all-cause 1-year mortality. A total of 3746 (11.6%) patients underwent transcatheter mitral valve repair and 28 531 (88.4%) underwent TAVR. In the transcatheter mitral valve repair and TAVR populations, respectively, there were 1903 (50.8%) and 14 938 (52.4%) patients defined as low risk for frailty (score <5), 1476 (39.4%) and 11 268 (39.5%) defined as intermediate risk (score 5–15), and 367 (9.8%) and 2325 (8.1%) defined as high risk (score >15). One-year mortality was 12.8% in low-risk patients, 29.7% in intermediate-risk patients, and 40.9% in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair (log rank P < 0.001). In patients undergoing TAVR, 1-year mortality rates were 7.6% in low-risk patients, 17.6% in intermediate-risk patients, and 30.1% in high-risk patients (log rank P < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study successfully identified individuals at greater risk of short- and long-term mortality after undergoing transcatheter valve therapies in an elderly population in the USA using the ICD-10 claims-based Hospital Frailty Risk Score.
Abstract Background In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved 2-year survival ...compared with surgery. Objectives This study sought to determine whether this clinical benefit was sustained over time. Methods Patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed at increased risk for surgery by a multidisciplinary heart team were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or open surgical valve replacement (SAVR). Three-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were obtained in those patients with an attempted procedure. Results A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 U.S. centers; 750 patients underwent an attempted procedure. Three-year all-cause mortality or stroke was significantly lower in TAVR patients (37.3% vs. 46.7% in SAVR; p = 0.006). Adverse clinical outcome components were also reduced in TAVR patients compared with SAVR patients, including all-cause mortality (32.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively; p = 0.068), all stroke (12.6% vs. 19.0%, respectively; p = 0.034), and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (40.2% vs. 47.9%, respectively; p = 0.025). At 3 years aortic valve hemodynamics were better with TAVR patients (mean aortic valve gradient 7.62 ± 3.57 mm Hg vs. 11.40 ± 6.81 mm Hg in SAVR; p < 0.001), although moderate or severe residual aortic regurgitation was higher in TAVR patients (6.8% vs. 0.0% in SAVR; p < 0.001). There was no clinical evidence of valve thrombosis in either group. Conclusions Patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery had improved 3-year clinical outcomes after TAVR compared with surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamics were more favorable in TAVR patients without differences in structural valve deterioration. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902 )
The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and ...surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.
Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.
Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.
Display omitted
Abstract Background The U.S. pivotal trial for the self-expanding valve found that among patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, the 1-year survival rate was 4.9 ...percentage points higher in patients treated with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve bioprosthesis than in those treated with a surgical bioprosthesis. Objectives Longer-term clinical outcomes were examined to confirm if this mortality benefit is sustained. Methods Patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (transcatheter aortic valve replacement TAVR group) or to aortic valve replacement with a surgical bioprosthesis (surgical group). The 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated in these patients. Results A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. The rate of 2-year all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the TAVR group (22.2%) than in the surgical group (28.6%; log-rank test p < 0.05) in the as-treated cohort, with an absolute reduction in risk of 6.5 percentage points. Similar results were found in the intention-to-treat cohort (log-rank test p < 0.05). The rate of 2-year death or major stroke was significantly lower in the TAVR group (24.2%) than in the surgical group (32.5%; log-rank test p = 0.01). Conclusions In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, the higher rate of survival with a self-expanding TAVR compared with surgery was sustained at 2 years. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902 )
PDF
