What a busy day! Great session related to TAVI and discussion of low risk patients and insights from the πΊπΈ TVT database containing results from over 330,000 patients! Read more below... warning, long but interesting (hopefully!) thread... @EACTS@SCTSUK
First presentation included 2yr outcomes from PARTNER 3 trial from Dr Vinod Thourani π
We were reminded of the 1year results presented last year at ACC
Significant difference in composite 1o EP at 1yr, endpoint was death / stroke / rehospitalization
At 2 yrs, similar results for this composite EP
Some important observations from this table:
1) New LBBB (1 in 4) remains v.high with TAVI. This matters as data now shows new LBBB = β¬οΈ survival
2) New AF after sAVR is extraordinarily high(40%)! I don't see this in my daily practice
3) Valve thrombosis β¬οΈ with TAVI at 2 yrs
Also, the significant difference in stroke at 1yr had disappeared by 2 years, so significant difference in primary EP at 2yrs driven by rehospitalization
Conclusion - overall results favour TAVI at 2yrs but changes between years 1 and 2 clearly underline importance of longer term follow-up, which is planned until 10years - good to know!
Next up, fascinating real world data from πΊπΈ. 716 TAVI sites across the country!
TAVI overtook isolated sAVR in 2016 in terms of volume but last year overtook sAVR for all procedures
Almost 78000 TAVI procedures in 2019, ~7% are V-in-V cases
Look at the effect of FDA approval for low risk patients on procedural numbers...in the FIRST QUARTER of 2020 alone, there were more low risk patients treated by TAVI than in the WHOLE of 2019! TAVI in low risk patients has increased massively...
TAVI patient ages by surgical risk category
80-81 for high & intermediate risk
75 for low risk patients
Mortality rates continue to fall which is hugely reassuring
Curiously, in 2nd image, look at 2019 data - in hospital mortality 1.3% but 30day mortality 2.3%! What is going on between day ~3 and day 30 such that death rate nearly *doubles*? This needs closer look to understand
Pacing rates haven't changed and remain higher than ideal...
Finally, the Summary from Dr Kaul. Started with great slides highlighting trial strengths & weaknesses. For PARTNER 3, there's inclusion of rehospitalization in the 1o EP, which hadn't been in PARTNER 2. For CoreValve, only 10% pts completed 2yr F/U, 90% data imputed by modeling
He reminded us of the rather over-enthusiastic (my words) Editorial last year stating that TAVI was now 1st line treatment in all patients...despite fact that bicuspid valve, younger patients, unfavourable anatomy etc all excluded! π€¦π½ββοΈ
Importantly, he highlighted data from PARTNER 2 showing that although TAVI was non-inferior to sAVR at 2yrs, this was no longer true at 5yrs...i.e. if it's not non-inferior... then it's inferior
That's important, so I'll repeat - in PARTNER 2, TAVI no longer non-inferior at 5yrs
Similar patterns emerging in PARTNER 3 although 2yr data not yet published...
Great conclusions and a slide highlighting the (large) cohorts of patients for whom sAVR still appears to be the right choice
Followed by a panel discussion. By far my favourite part was when @drjohnm asked why PARTNER 3 included rehospitalization in 1o EP and the candid reply was (I'm paraphrasing) "Well Edwards asked to include it & the FDA said sure, no problem" π±π€£π€£
In conclusion, my thoughts:
-TAVI is a great innovation & superb example of successful Industry-clinician-scientist collaboration. It has allowed us to treat hundreds of thousands of patients that may otherwise have not had any treatment and it's arrival should be embraced
I don't think anyone denies its prominent role for high risk severe AS patients and certainly an argument can be made for certain individuals at intermediate risk although 5yr data from PARTNER 2 suggest some caution would be prudent
Where biggest disagreements lie is with low risk. Many people, myself included, are surprised FDA approval was granted for a device designed to last a decade on the back of 1yr data. Pacemaker and new LBBB rates remain higher than we'd like. Plus, 2yr data not as rosy as 1yr...
We really need regulators to insist on proper (clinically important) primary endpoints & imputing outcomes with modeling makes no sense when you could have just followed them up...
Finally, are we happy that companies making the valves are not just funding the pivotal Phase 3 trials of their own products, but now choose the participating centres, choose endpoints, collect the data and analyze the data?
Mitra-FR has shown it doesn't have to be this way...
I have no doubt one day TAVI will be the primary modality for most severe AS patients, but I don't think we are quite at the point of making it first line in all (or even most) low risk patients...yet
OK, this starts off about valves...but then isn't really about valves...but it's the broader educational point (which is relevant to valves) that I want to make this week...no poll I'm afraid, but as always, comments encouraged! π
In my office doing Admin, lot to get through & a very busy morning ahead. Asked to r/v a TTE for helping determine AS severity. Pt admitted with heart failure, clinically severe AS is all I know at this point. Now, the golden rule in this situation is *review the whole study*...
Not just one or two images.
But I was super-busy, I BROKE MY OWN RULE and just looked at the relevant images. Here's the PW and CW Doppler tracings (Pt in AF)...
In our hospital, we have seen 2 patients over the past 3 years that presented with acute heart failure and who had severe AR on echo with large, characteristic masses on the AV. This week's poll is simply... what do you think these masses are? (1)
Patient 1 - Female, early 60s, no major PMHx, admitted with 2 weeks worsening SOB and palpitations. No fever. In heart failure, BP 110mmHg systolic. AR murmur. Normal white cell count & near normal CRP on bloods. TTE below...zoomed PLAX view of AV (2)