Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30275957›Full record

ArticleOpen heart

Guideline-defined futility or patient-reported outcomes to assess treatment success after TAVI: what to use? Results from a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.

Martijn Stefan van Mourik, Jeroen Vendrik, Mohammad Abdelghani, Floortje van Kesteren, Jose P S Henriques, Antoine H G Driessen, Joanna J Wykrzykowska, Robbert J de Winter, Jan J Piek, Jan G Tijssen and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Preoperative frailty parameters as predictors for outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020
    Review
  15. Value of machine learning in predicting TAVI outcomes.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Martijn Stefan van Mourik *Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8994-8946
Jeroen Vendrik *Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0172-5842
Mohammad AbdelghaniHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Floortje van KesterenHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jose P S HenriquesHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Antoine H G DriessenHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joanna J WykrzykowskaHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Robbert J de WinterHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan J PiekHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan G TijssenHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Karel T KochHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan BaanHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M Marije VisHeart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provides a significant symptom relief and mortality reduction in most patients; however, a substantial group of patients does not experience the same beneficial results according to physician-determined outcomes. Methods: Single-centre prospective design; the population comprises all consecutive patients undergoing TAVI in 2012-2017. TAVI futility was defined as the combined endpoint of either no symptomatic improvement or mortality at 1 year. We actively gathered telephone follow-up using a predefined questionnaire. Results: Guideline defined TAVI futility was present in 212/741 patients. Multivariate regression showed lower albumin and non-transfemoral approach to be predictive for futility. In addition to these, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, low-flow-low-gradient aortic stenosis and lower Body Mass Index were predictive for 1-year mortality. Patients who showed symptomatic benefit estimated the percentage in which their symptoms were remedied higher than patients who did not (80% vs 60%, p<0.001). Guideline-defined TAVI futility occurs frequently, contrasting with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The vast majority in both groups would again choose for TAVI treatment. Conclusion: Lower albumin and non-transfemoral access route were predictors for guideline-defined TAVI futility, defined as mortality within 1 year or no objective symptomatic improvement in New York Heart Association class. Futility according to this definition occurred frequently in this study, contrasting with much more positive PROMs. The majority of patients would undergo a TAVI again, underlining the patients' experienced value of TAVI and putting the definition of TAVI futility further on debate. In the near future, less-strict criteria for TAVI futility, that is, using a shorter warranted life expectancy and incorporating patients' perceived outcomes, should be used.

Indexed as

futilitymortalityPROMSsymptomatic improvementtranscatheter aortic valve

Identifiers

PMID30275957
PMCPMC6157566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.