ABSTRACT
RATIONALE: The impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) on cognitive status and quality of life in high-risk patients has been incompletely investigated. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study including all patients treated with TAVI and high-risk patients undergoing AVR (age ≥80 years or logistic EuroSCORE ≥15%) at participating centers. Multidimensional geriatric evaluation including Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) and Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) were performed at baseline and at 3- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients (151 AVR and 367 TAVI) were enrolled in 10 Italian institutions. Patients receiving AVR were older (82.7 ± 2.4 years), with a lower logistic EuroSCORE (12.5 ± 7.1%) as compared with TAVI patients (81.5 ± 6.2 years and 19.6 ± 14.0%, respectively, p=0.001 and p<0.001). Overall, 35.5% of patients showed some degree of cognitive impairment at baseline, with no differences between groups. No significant changes in the cognitive status were observed between baseline and follow-up and between groups at any time point. TAVI patients had a lower quality of life at baseline as compared with AVR patients. Generic and heart failure-related quality of life improved significantly after either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, both TAVI and AVR are associated with a significant improvement of quality of life up to 1 year without a detrimental effect on cognitive function.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Aortic Valve/surgery , Cognition , Quality of Life , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/psychology , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/psychology , Humans , Italy , Male , Prospective Studies , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a very effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are either not suitable candidates or at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients undergoing TAVI are often very elderly and their clinical status is burdened with multiple comorbidities, therefore evaluation of quality of life (QoL) might be challenging. We sought to provide an overview of available data on QoL changes after TAVI and critical insights on the instruments used to detect these changes. METHODS: This analysis focuses on studies that evaluated QoL after TAVI with standardized questionnaires. Out of 706 items identified through literature search, 23 studies were included in the final review: 2 randomized controlled trials (one comparing QoL pre- vs post-TAVI, one TAVI vs AVR vs medical therapy) and 21 observational studies (19 studies comparing QoL pre- and post-TAVI and 2 studies TAVI vs AVR). The instruments used in all studies were not specific for TAVI patients. RESULTS: Most studies reported a significant improvement in QoL after TAVI, greater for physical aspects compared with psychological components, which persisted at mid and long-term follow-up. A short-term benefit was found for transfemoral TAVI patients as compared with transapical TAVI and AVR; however, these differences tended to disappear over time. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights an improvement in QoL after TAVI that persists over time. As different instruments resulted to be more sensitive to detect different aspects, multidimensional assessments - capable of combining disease-specific and disease-non-specific measures - should foster clinical research in order to have a more complete picture of QoL of TAVI patients.