These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: "Heart Team" decision making in elderly patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis who underwent AVR or TAVI - a look behind the curtain. Results of the prospective TAVI Calculation of Costs Trial (TCCT).
    Author: Kaier K, Gutmann A, Vach W, Sorg S, Siepe M, von Zur Mühlen C, Moser M, Blanke P, Beyersdorf F, Zehender M, Bode C, Reinöhl J.
    Journal: EuroIntervention; 2015 Nov; 11(7):793-8. PubMed ID: 25499832.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: Little is known about how "Heart Team" treatment decisions among patients suitable for either surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are made under routine conditions. METHODS AND RESULTS: The "Heart Team" decision-making process was analysed with respect to124 patients of a non-randomised prospective clinical trial that included patients aged ≥75 years: 41 patients underwent AVR and 83 underwent TAVI. By use of the non-parametric classification and regression tree (CART) methodology, 21 baseline parameters were tested to reconstruct the decision process retrospectively. Next, multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the decision and outcome relevance (two-year survival) of the parameters as identified in the CART procedure. For patients with a baseline EuroSCORE I ≥13.48%, no further cut-off points were identified and the majority of these patients underwent TAVI. Among patients with a baseline EuroSCORE I <13.48%, age and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were identified as further relevant decision parameters. The decision relevance of EuroSCORE I (p=0.003), age (p=0.024) and LVEF (p=0.047) were confirmed by multivariate analysis; however, outcome relevance can be confirmed for EuroSCORE I (p=0.015) only, while treatment decision (TAVI or AVR) was not a significant predictor of mortality (p=0.655). CONCLUSIONS: Despite or even because of the systematic risk selection according to EuroSCORE I values, we observed two-year survival rates of about 75% regardless of whether the patient received TAVI or AVR, suggesting that the decisions made by the "Heart Team" were appropriate.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]