First talk from Prof Takkenberg, who needs no introduction to any of you. A very important talk in which she questioned the primacy of RCTs and spoke up on the importance of 'real world' registry data, often dismissed as poor quality
Correctly, she highlighted that 1 issue with RCTs is the very selective nature of the patients enrolled - often leading to much better outcomes in trials than we see subsequently in real life - TAVI & SAVR example here
Concluded by emphasising that RCTs and observational / real world data should be viewed in combination and as complimentary, not as RCTs are the untouchable gold standard that should never be questioned...
Starts off with an explanation of the valve structure.
Based on the highly successful Perimount valve design, with new features to reduce leaflet calcification & for ring to 'expand' to facilitate future V-in-V TAVI when AVR degenerates
This slide is a little over-hyped imho...the valves were explanted after just 8 months...we need a longer timeframe, but I understand the premise - these leaflets are hopefully less prone to calcification
Maybe I'm just spoilt by excellent outcomes where I work, but I was worried by these data
30-day mortality 2.6% in a cohort with mean age just 60, and 94pts are <60yrs old? We didn't have STS scores that I saw, but this seemed really high to me
Again, the data (that Prof Meuris' team conducted) showing significantly less leaflet calcium on the Inspiris compared to Perimount valve after 8 months in an animal model...my thoughts on this later...
The pitch was very much that these valves may be used in patients that would otherwise receive a mechanical valve - mAVR means more bleeding, tAVR means more re-do procedures
There was NO mention of the cost of the Inspiris Resilia valve itself and how that compares to a mechanical valve...see end of thread for why that matters...
These slides were used to illustrate that anticoagulation comes at a price, soemtimes due to low INR needing admission for correction or bleeding complications causing admission and possibly major harm
So, my thoughts? Well, this was a cleverly crafted session. The constant theme through the talks was to question the primacy of RCTs & showcase the utility of real world data
Now, as it happens, I *agree* that RCTs have major flaws, especially some done recently...
Cherrypicking patients to maximise likelihood of a significant difference between two arms is not useful, if the outcomes achieved in an RCT - upon which FDA / CE approvals may be based - simply cannot be recreated in our daily practice
However - where I disagreed is what we do about this. The answer is not to embrace retrospective observational studies even more but to improve RCTs! We *have* to demand better of our randomised studies. There's a reason randomised studies are considered best
Randomisation evenly & randomy distributes all variables - known & unknown - that could influence outcomes
So, must do better to enrol women, to enrol ethnic minorities & to reduce exclusion criteria...of course, *obvious* reasons trial sponsors may not be keen
Our surgeons were not very happy. But, on this occasion, I had some sympathy with the managers too. The new valve is DOUBLE the cost of the old valve and there are ZERO data (by definition) *proving* that it lasts longer than the original Perimount Mgane Ease
I'm sure I'm coming across as too cynical. I don't mean to. I applaud Industry for spending R&D funds on improving bioprostheses & Edwards has been a leader in the field
But, it would be nice to have a well-conduced RCT of Inspiris vs mAVR in 50-60yr olds
End! π
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If someone has already lived far past the average life expectancy in their country and is now into their 90s, can we *promise* the patient that TAVI will make them live longer?
In our centre, we feel that patients >90 need to be very motivated to have a procedure
This is a π§΅all about Transcatheter Mitral Valve Implantation (TMVI). If you don't know a lot about this and want to learn more - read on! This is a summary of a great expert focus session
First talk from Dr Gry Dahle (Oslo), on why TMVI is not the same as TAVI
TAVI has revolutionised treatment of aortic stenosis; TMVI is further behind largely due to anaromical complexity of treating the MV compared to the AV - the AV valves are much more complex than the semilunar valves!
Abstract session on Hot Topics in Transcatheter Therapies
Presentation from Dr Justin Robinson on use of TAVI in patients with very large aortic annuli - Results from the Michigan TAVI Quality Collaborative
#EACTS2021
Methods here: just over 200 patients with aortic annuli in excess of the normal ranges for both the Edwards Sapien and Medtronic Corevalve systems
#EACTS2021
The C TAH is probably the world's most advanced total artificial heart & is designed for patients with severe biventricular failure (i.e. for whom an LVAD would be insufficient).
It gained a CE mark last year and has an FDA approval for early feasibility studies
This is a 𧡠about physical examination, and what role it (still) plays in modern clinical practice. Decided to write this after seeing a post earlier this yr by @RichardLehman1 on this issue and some people replying that examination was much less relevant in the modern era
I'd like to share 3 case examples of why I don't believe that is true. POCUS is a valuable *adjunct* to the initial clinical assessment, which includes both history & exam (H&E). The H&E should direct which tests you want & what Q you're asking
1. MR case 2. AS case 3. HF case
Case 1
Pt referred to @UHS_valveclinic with new murmur. Completely asymptomatic, very fit & active. Phys exam revealed a prominent systolic murmur, no other abN findings.