VP05 Comprehensive Evaluation Of An Evolving Transcatheter Technology. (2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lambert, Laurie; Azzi, Leila; Désy, François; Vutcovici, Maria; Boothroyd, Lucy; Brière, Anabèle; Bogaty, Peter; de Guise, Michèle
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 33:Supplement 1(2017)
• Page Start: 148
• Page End: 149
• Publication Date: 2017
• Subjects: Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317003038
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract : INTRODUCTION: Our cardiovascular evaluation unit is mandated to evaluate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the province of Québec. In 2012, it was recommended that only patients at too high risk for surgery receive TAVI. In partnership with our six hospital TAVI programs, we have measured indicators of structure, process and outcomes since 2013. We are collaborating with multidisciplinary clinical experts to update recommendations for optimal use. Herein, we present the evolving portrait of TAVI in Québec and identify priority issues. METHODS: Clinical data were collected and analyzed for all TAVI performed from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2016. Regular site feedback was provided. A systematic review of recent guidelines and randomized trials facilitated the interpretation of "real world" results and formulation of provincial quality standards. RESULTS: Provincial TAVI volume increased from 294 in 2013–14 to 340 in 2014–15, and to 360 in 2015–16. Patient age and sex distribution remained relatively constant over time (median age 83 years; 47 percent female). However, the median predicted risk of operative mortality (STS score) decreased in the latest period [6 percent (Interquartile Range, IQR: 4–9) versus 7 percent (IQR: 4–9) versus 4 percent (IQR: 3–7)], suggesting TAVI is increasingly being performed in lower-risk patients. Clinical documentation and processes of care generally improved. Thirty-day mortality decreased (6.1 percent versus 4.1 percent versus 2.8 percent). The literature review identified two central issues: TAVI futility in patients who are too sick and apparent non-inferiority of TAVI compared with surgical valve replacement in medium-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our province-wide TAVI evaluation indicates improving processes and outcomes. Patient selection remains the key in our universal healthcare system, with the need to minimize futile and costly therapy and offer TAVI to those most likely to benefit. Continued monitoring of clinical practice and newly-established quality standards, in close collaboration with clinical teams, remains essential to promote optimal use of this evolving technology.