Examining lack of referrals to heart valve specialists as mechanisms of potential underutilization of aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains underutilized. AIMS: Investigate the potential role of non-referral to heart valve specialists (HVS) on AVR utilization. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) between 2015 and 2018, who met class I indication for intervention, were identified. Baseline data and process-related parameters were collected to analyze referral predictors and evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: Among 981 patients meeting criteria AVR, 790 patients (80.5%) were assessed by HVS within six months of index TTE. Factors linked to reduced referral included increasing age (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.94-0.97; P < .001), unmarried status (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.43-0.83; P = .002) and inpatient TTE (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.19-0.38; P < .001). Conversely, higher hematocrit (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.09-1.16; P < .001) and eGFR (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.02; P = .003), mean aortic valve gradient (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04; P < .001) and preserved LVEF (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.02-2.48; P = .04), were associated with increased referral likelihood. Moreover, patients assessed by HVS referral as a time-dependent covariate had a significantly lower two-year mortality risk than those who were not (aHR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.23-0.39; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of severe AS patients meeting indications for AVR are not evaluated by HVS and experience markedly increased mortality. Further research is warranted to assess the efficacy of care delivery mechanisms, such as e-consults, and telemedicine, to improve access to HVS expertise.

Patient- and Process-Related Contributors to the Underuse of Aortic Valve Replacement and Subsequent Mortality in Ambulatory Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Background Many patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and an indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) do not undergo treatment. The reasons for this have not been well studied in the transcatheter AVR era. We sought to determine how patient- and process-specific factors affected AVR use in patients with severe AS. Methods and Results We identified ambulatory patients from 2016 to 2018 demonstrating severe AS, defined by aortic valve area [Formula: see text]1.0 cm2. Propensity scoring analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate associations between predictors and the odds of undergoing AVR at 365 days and subsequent mortality at 730 days. Of 324 patients with an indication for AVR (79.3±9.7 years, 57.4% men), 140 patients (43.2%) did not undergo AVR. The odds of AVR were reduced in patients aged >90 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.24 [95% CI, 0.08-0.69]; P=0.01), greater comorbid conditions (OR, 0.88 per 1-point increase in Combined Comorbidity Index [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P=0.01), low-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-0.21]), and low-gradient AS with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.08-0.40]) and were increased if the transthoracic echocardiogram ordering provider was a cardiologist (OR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.38-4.38]). Patients who underwent AVR gained an average of 85.8 days of life (95% CI, 40.9-130.6) at 730 days. Conclusions The proportion of ambulatory patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR who do not receive AVR remains significant. Efforts are needed to maximize the recognition of severe AS, especially low-gradient subtypes, and to encourage patient referral to multidisciplinary heart valve teams.

Erratum to accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors in cardiac rehabilitation.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.21037/cdt.2019.04.08.].

Accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors in cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: To assess the accuracy of four wearable heart rate (HR) monitors in patients with established cardiovascular disease enrolled in phase II or III cardiac rehabilitation (CR). METHODS: Eighty adult patients enrolled in phase II or III CR were monitored during a CR session that included exercise on a treadmill and/or stationary cycle. Participants underwent HR monitoring with standard ECG limb leads, an electrocardiographic (ECG) chest strap monitor (Polar H7), and two randomly assigned wrist-worn HR monitors (Apple Watch, Fitbit Blaze, Garmin Forerunner 235, TomTom Spark Cardio), one on each wrist. HR was recorded at rest and at 3, 5, and 7 minutes of steady-state exercise on the treadmill and stationary cycle. RESULTS: Across all exercise conditions, the chest strap monitor (Polar H7) had the best agreement with ECG (rc=0.99) followed by the Apple Watch (rc=0.80), Fitbit Blaze (rc=0.78), TomTom Spark (rc=0.76) and Garmin Forerunner (rc=0.52). There was variability in accuracy under different exercise conditions. On the treadmill, only the Fitbit Blaze performed well (rc=0.76), while on the stationary cycle, Apple Watch (rc=0.89) and TomTom Spark (rc=0.85) were most accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac patients, the accuracy of wearable, optically based HR monitors varies, and none of those tested was as accurate as an electrode-containing chest monitor. This observation has implications for in-home CR, as electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative.

Automated Titanium Fasteners Versus Hand-Tied Knots: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits of automated titanium fasteners (LSI Solutions, Victor, NY) have not been examined in patients undergoing sternotomy. The aim of this study was to assess the time and cost required for suture fixation with the automated device versus conventional hand tying in sternotomy for mitral or tricuspid ring annuloplasty. METHODS: Fifty patients scheduled to undergo primary mitral or tricuspid, or both, ring annuloplasty-based valve repair operation by a single surgeon were randomly assigned to receive either conventional hand-tied knots or automated titanium fasteners, with 25 patients in each group. The primary outcome variable was the time required to affix the annuloplasty device to the valve annulus. RESULTS: The times taken to affix a mitral annuloplasty band or ring were 6.1 ± 0.9 min for manual tying versus 3.1 ± 0.4 min for automated fasteners (p < 0.0001); when calculated per annuloplasty stitch, the values were 22 ± 2 s versus 12 ± 1.1 s, respectively (p < 0.0001). The corresponding values for tricuspid annuloplasty were 4.2 ± 1.2 min (hand tying) versus 2.2 ± 0.3 min (automated fasteners) (p = 0.0005), and the times for each suture were 20 ± 2.1 s versus 13 ± 2 s, respectively (p = 0.0004). The use of the automated fastener had no significant impact on aortic cross-clamp time or cardiopulmonary bypass duration. Total cost associated with annuloplasty fixation with automated titanium fasteners (device cost in addition to operating room time cost) was significantly higher than with hand tying ($1,190 ± 374 vs $164 ± 60; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the automated fastener to facilitate annuloplasty fixation through a sternotomy resulted in a small procedural time savings (average of 10 s/stitch) that had no overall impact on cardiopulmonary bypass or cross-clamp times but added an average cost of $1,026 to the operation.

Importance of surgeon-performed ultrasound in the preoperative nodal assessment of patients with potential thyroid malignancy.

INTRODUCTION: A comprehensive cervical ultrasound evaluation is essential in the operative planning of patients with thyroid disease. Reliance on radiographic reports alone may result in incomplete operative management as pathologic lymph nodes are often not palpable and evaluation of the lateral neck is not routine. This study examined the role of surgeon-performed ultrasound in the evaluation of patients who underwent lateral neck dissection for thyroid cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent therapeutic lymph node dissection for thyroid cancer between 2001 and 2016 at our tertiary referral center. All patients had surgeon-performed ultrasound preoperatively by 1 of 7 endocrine surgeons. These findings were compared with prereferral imaging studies to determine the value of surgeon-performed ultrasound to their overall treatment. RESULTS: Of 92 patients who underwent thyroidectomy with lateral neck dissection, 97% had prereferral imaging of the neck (ultrasonography, computed tomography, positron emission tomography). Of these patients, nodal disease was suggested by computed tomography scanning in 70.8% and by ultrasonography in 54%. Of all patients, 45% had positive lateral neck nodes detected only on surgeon-performed ultrasound despite prior neck imaging. Nodal disease was identified in 50% of patients with only 1 study and 50% of patients with greater than 1 study before surgeon-performed ultrasound. Of patients with nodes detected by surgeon-performed ultrasound, only 67% had a prereferral diagnosis of thyroid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that reliance on standard preoperative imaging alone would have led to an incorrect initial operation in 45% of our patients. Awareness of the limitations of prereferral imaging is important for surgeons treating patients with thyroid and parathyroid disease. Surgeon-performed ultrasound is a useful tool in the diagnosis and accurate staging of patients.

Variable Accuracy of Wearable Heart Rate Monitors during Aerobic Exercise.

PURPOSE: Athletes and members of the public increasingly rely on wearable HR monitors to guide physical activity and training. The accuracy of newer, optically based monitors is unconfirmed. We sought to assess the accuracy of five optically based HR monitors during various types of aerobic exercise. METHODS: Fifty healthy adult volunteers (mean ± SD age = 38 ± 12 yr, 54% female) completed exercise protocols on a treadmill, a stationary bicycle, and an elliptical trainer (±arm movement). Each participant underwent HR monitoring with an electrocardiogaphic chest strap monitor (Polar H7), forearm monitor (Scosche Rhythm+), and two randomly assigned wrist-worn HR monitors (Apple Watch, Fitbit Blaze, Garmin Forerunner 235, and TomTom Spark Cardio), one on each wrist. For each exercise type, HR was recorded at rest, light, moderate, and vigorous intensity. Agreement between HR measurements was assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (rc). RESULTS: Across all exercise conditions, the chest strap monitor (Polar H7) had the best agreement with ECG (rc = 0.996) followed by the Apple Watch (rc = 0.92), the TomTom Spark (rc = 0.83), and the Garmin Forerunner (rc = 0.81). Scosche Rhythm+ and Fitbit Blaze were less accurate (rc = 0.75 and rc = 0.67, respectively). On treadmill, all devices performed well (rc = 0.88-0.93) except the Fitbit Blaze (rc = 0.76). While bicycling, only the Garmin, Apple Watch, and Scosche Rhythm+ had acceptable agreement (rc > 0.80). On the elliptical trainer without arm levers, only the Apple Watch was accurate (rc = 0.94). None of the devices was accurate during elliptical trainer use with arm levers (all rc < 0.80). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of wearable, optically based HR monitors varies with exercise type and is greatest on the treadmill and lowest on elliptical trainer. Electrode-containing chest monitors should be used when accurate HR measurement is imperative.