Advantages of a prospective multidisciplinary approach in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Eight years of experience.

INTRODUCTION Aortic stenosis is the most prevalent type of valvular disease in Europe. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the standard therapy, while transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative in patients at unacceptably high surgical risk. Assessment by a heart team is recommended by the guidelines but there is little published evidence on this subject. The purpose of this paper is to describe the experience of a multidisciplinary TAVI program that began in 2008. METHODS The heart team prospectively assessed 473 patients using a standardized approach. A total of 214 patients were selected for TAVI and 80 for SAVR. Demographic, clinical and procedural characteristics and long-term success rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS TAVI patients were older than the SAVR group (median 83 vs. 81 years), and had higher surgical risk scores (median EuroSCORE II 5.3 vs. 3.6% and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 5.1 vs. 3.1%), as did the patients under medical treatment only. These scores were unable to assess multiple comorbidities. Patients' outcomes were different between the three groups (mortality with SAVR 25% vs. TAVI 37.6% vs. conservative therapy 57.6%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS The heart team program was able to select candidates appropriately for TAVI, SAVR and conservative treatment, taking into account the risk of both invasive treatments. The use of a prospective standardized heart team approach is recommended, but requires continuous monitoring to ensure effectiveness in a timely manner.