ArticleHerz2024
Guideline-endorsed follow-up after percutaneous valve therapies-non-attendance of TAVI and MitraClip patients.
Article in Herz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous valve therapies (PVT) are performed on a large number of patients. With increasing procedural volume, the need for follow-up has also increased. Follow-up in the heart valve clinic is endorsed by recent guidelines but utilization is unknown, making resource allocation in the clinic difficult. Central follow-up in valve centers may not be feasible for all patients in the future.
methodsIn our center, follow-up for PVT patients is scheduled at 1 month and 12 months after the index procedure. Patients are reminded of their appointment by invitation letters or phone calls. We analyzed 150 consecutive patients who underwent transcutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and MitraClip implantation (n = 300) at our center.
resultsAt 1 month, 72.7% of patients attended their follow-up, while at 12 months the rate dropped to 58%. Patients who underwent TAVI were older than the MitraClip patients (82.7 vs. 76.1 years) but had lower mean logEuroSCORE (22.6% vs. 25.9%). There was no significant difference in 1‑year mortality between TAVI and MitraClip patients (20% vs. 17.3%). By contrast, the rate of missed follow-up visits was higher for TAVI compared to MitraClip patients (52% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.002). Female patients less frequently attended follow-up (p = 0.005), whereas age, EuroSCORE, NYHA class, ejection fraction, and health status (EQ-5DVAS) were not predictors of attendance in multivariable analysis. Although the result of the EQ-5D assessment was not associated with mortality or attendance, completing the questionnaire was associated with overall survival (p < 0.001).
conclusionIn our heart valve clinic, we observed a high percentage of missed follow-up appointments (42% at 12 months) despite a structured follow-up plan. Factors significantly associated with non-attendance in multivariable analysis were female gender and having a TAVI rather than MitraClip. Future follow-up concepts should take such findings into account, and decentralized approaches need to be explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38743296What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.