Transcatheter aortic valve replacement program development: recommendations for best practice.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an increasingly available therapy for the management of aortic stenosis in higher risk populations. Beyond addressing the procedural challenges, centers must attend to the unique requirements of developing TAVR programs from referral to follow-up. AIM: The aim of this article is to outline the recommendations for best practice for program development from centers with early and extensive experience. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline-recommended Heart Team approach requires interdisciplinary agreements, delineation of roles and responsibilities, and the development of the role of the TAVR Coordinator. To support appropriate case selection, the screening and evaluation must be organized in a comprehensive clinic visit. In addition to the multimodality imaging tests, the assessment of functional status and frailty is pivotal to the eligibility decision. Throughout the TAVR trajectory, careful attention must be afforded to the integration of geriatric best practices. Pre-procedure care requires patient and family education to manage expectations and facilitate early discharge planning. Peri-procedural care planning, including equipment requirements, monitoring protocols, and emergency intervention agreements, contributes to procedural success. The aims of post-procedure care are to monitor the recovery, facilitate the rapid return to baseline status, and optimize length of stay. TAVR programs require data management strategies to facilitate and monitor program growth, support program evaluation, and meet the requirements for submission to national registries. CONCLUSION: TAVR represents a paradigm shift in the management of structural heart disease. Programmatic success and patient outcomes depend on the development of a comprehensive and collaborative program tailored to TAVR.

Explanatory value of the Ability Index as assessed by cardiologists and patients with congenital heart disease.

INTRODUCTION: The Ability Index was developed to classify patients with congenital heart disease into four functional classes. Functional class is typically determined by the cardiologist, based on data from a clinical interview. The validity of the Ability Index as assessed by the patient has never been scrutinized. OBJECTIVE: We tested the agreement between cardiologists and patients in assessing functional status using the Ability Index and compared the accuracy of the two assessments in explaining patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: The Ability Index Scale was completed for 57 patients, independently by cardiologists and patients. Cohen's Kappa coefficient with quadratic weighting (K(w)) was calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) (=C-index) was used to test the accuracy of the Ability Index in explaining PRO, as assessed by the cardiologist or the patient. RESULTS: Agreement was observed in 61.4% of the patients. The K(w) was 0.55, showing a moderate agreement; and the R(2) was 0.29, displaying a limited shared variance. The AUC for cardiologists' assessments of the Ability Index in explaining PRO was consistently lower than the AUC for patients' assessments. The appraisal of the patients was more accurate. DISCUSSION: When cardiologists and patients are assessing functional status using the Ability Index, two different constructs are measured. These assessments cannot be interchanged, but should be used complementarily. Because the assessment of the patients regarding the Ability Index is more precise in terms of explaining PRO, it could be valuable as a simple crude marker to identify patients at risk for poor functional and psychosocial outcomes.