Article

Relationship between the logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score in patients implanted with the CoreValve ReValving System-A Bern-Rotterdam Study

Interventional Cardiology Department, Erasmus Medical Center, Thoraxcenter, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
American heart journal (Impact Factor: 4.56). 02/2010; 159(2):323-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.11.026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Surgical risk scores, such as the logistic EuroSCORE (LES) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS) score, are commonly used to identify high-risk or "inoperable" patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In Europe, the LES plays an important role in selecting patients for implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve System. What is less clear, however, is the role of the STS score of these patients and the relationship between the LES and STS.
The purpose of this study is to examine the correlation between LES and STS scores and their performance characteristics in high-risk surgical patients implanted with the Medtronic CoreValve System.
All consecutive patients (n = 168) in whom a CoreValve bioprosthesis was implanted between November 2005 and June 2009 at 2 centers (Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, and Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) were included for analysis. Patient demographics were recorded in a prospective database. Logistic EuroSCORE and STS scores were calculated on a prospective and retrospective basis, respectively.
Observed mortality was 11.1%. The mean LES was 3 times higher than the mean STS score (LES 20.2% +/- 13.9% vs STS 6.7% +/- 5.8%). Based on the various LES and STS cutoff values used in previous and ongoing TAVI trials, 53% of patients had an LES > or =15%, 16% had an STS > or =10%, and 40% had an LES > or =20% or STS > or =10%. Pearson correlation coefficient revealed a reasonable (moderate) linear relationship between the LES and STS scores, r = 0.58, P < .001. Although the STS score outperformed the LES, both models had suboptimal discriminatory power (c-statistic, 0.49 for LES and 0.69 for STS) and calibration.
Clinical judgment and the Heart Team concept should play a key role in selecting patients for TAVI, whereas currently available surgical risk score algorithms should be used to guide clinical decision making.

0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [TAVI] is widespread worldwide as an alternative therapy procedure to the patients suffering from severe aortic valve stenosis. However, we shouldn't forget that the conventional surgical aortic valve replacement is still the gold standard therapy for severe aortic valve stenosis. For the patients who cannot be treated conventionally because of high risk comorbid diseases and older age, TAVI is an effective alternative therapy method. The indications should be limited, concerning the high mortality rate, 10% within 30 days of intervention. Long term efficacy data are still inadequate. Although the indications are restricted to older patients with a STS score >10 or log-Euro Score >20, age is not a definite indication for this treatment. The patients should be assessed by a heart team including a non-interventional cardiologist, interventional cardiologist, cardiac anesthesiologist and cardiac surgeon according to their general status, frailty and STS- Euro score. In other words, assessment and treatment of the patient by a heart team is the main factor besides the limited power of the scoring systems. The treatment should be applied to the patients with an aortic annulus diameter between 18-27 mm and a life expectancy of at least over 1 year. The currently ongoing investigations are focused on parameters like safety, efficiency and long term reliability of TAVI. The scientific and technical developments lead to new definitions and parameters regarding the treatment indications of severe aortic valve stenosis. In this review, we present the actual data about TAVI and also our own experiences.
    Balkan Journal of Medical Genetics 06/2012; 29(2):118-23. DOI:10.5152/balkanmedj.2012.004 · 0.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose We sought to evaluate the clinical usefulness of decision making by a multidisciplinary heart team for identifying potential candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Materials and Methods The multidisciplinary team consisted of two interventional cardiologists, two cardiovascular surgeons, one cardiac imaging specialist, and two cardiac anesthesiologists. Results Out of 60 patients who were screened as potential TAVI candidates, 31 patients were initially recommended as appropriate for TAVI, and 20 of these 31 eventually underwent TAVI. Twenty-two patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), and 17 patients received only medical treatment. Patients who underwent TAVI and medical therapy were older than those who underwent surgical AVR (p<0.001). The logistic Euroscore was significantly highest in the TAVI group and lowest in the surgical AVR group (p=0.012). Most patients in the TAVI group (90%) and the surgical AVR group (91%) had severe cardiac symptoms, but only 47% in the medical therapy group had severe symptoms. The cumulative percentages of survival without re-hospitalization or all-cause death at 6 months for the surgical AVR, TAVI, and medical therapy groups were 84%, 75%, and 28%, respectively (p=0.007, by log-rank). Conclusion TAVI was recommended in half of the potential candidates following a multidisciplinary team approach and was eventually performed in one-third of these patients. One-third of the patients who were initially considered potential candidates received surgical AVR with favorable clinical outcomes.
    Yonsei Medical Journal 09/2014; 55(5):1246-52. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2014.55.5.1246 · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased the use of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in treating aortic stenosis. We evaluated our use of BAV in an academic tertiary referral center with a developing TAVI program. We reviewed 69 consecutive stand-alone BAV procedures that were performed in 62 patients (mean age, 77 ± 10 yr; 62% men; baseline mean New York Heart Association functional class, 3 ± 1) from January 2009 through December 2012. Enrollment for the CoreValve(®) clinical trial began in January 2011. We divided the study cohort into 2 distinct periods, defined as pre-TAVI (2009-2010) and TAVI (2011-2012). We reviewed clinical, hemodynamic, and follow-up data, calculating each BAV procedure as a separate case. Stand-alone BAV use increased 145% from the pre-TAVI period to the TAVI period. The mean aortic gradient reduction was 13 ± 10 mmHg. Patients were successfully bridged as intended to cardiac or noncardiac surgery in 100% of instances and to TAVI in 60%. Five patients stabilized with BAV subsequently underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with no operative deaths. The overall in-hospital mortality rate (17.4%) was highest in emergent patients (61%). The implementation of a TAVI program was associated with a significant change in BAV volumes and indications. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty can successfully bridge patients to surgery or TAVI, although least successfully in patients nearer death. As TAVI expands to more centers and higher-risk patient groups, BAV might become integral to collaborative treatment decisions by surgeons and interventional cardiologists.