Faculty Bibliography

Recent trials have highlighted the comparable mortality benefits and durability of the results for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high surgical risk managed with either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Various national guidelines and international regulatory bodies have approved TAVR, thereby leading to potential wide usage and dissemination of this technique worldwide. Quality-of-life outcomes, in spite of being an important measure of success and acceptability of the procedure, have not been publicized as extensively. For high risk patients with severe AS, implementation of TAVR has resulted in comparable survival, but different and novel adverse events compared with AVR. We present an updated review focusing on the quality-of-life outcomes and issues with this new and important procedural approach.

BACKGROUND:B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is used to diagnose heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE:To compare the accuracy of two commercially available point-of-care (POC) devices for measuring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected heart failure using the central laboratory testing results as the criterion standard. METHODS:Venous blood samples were collected from adults with suspected heart failure and split into three samples for BNP analysis: central laboratory (Siemens ADIVA Centaur; Siemens, Deerfield, IL), Triage BNP POC device (Biosite, San Diego, CA), and i-STAT BNP POC device (Abbott, East Windsor, NJ). The criterion standard for BNP levels was the central laboratory. RESULTS:Two hundred fifty patients were enrolled. Mean (SD) age was 70.7 (13.8) years; 200 (80%) were over age 55 years; 146 (58.4%) were male. A final hospital discharge diagnosis of heart failure was made in 108 (42%) patients. The i-STAT system yielded a result within a median of 9 min (interquartile range [IQR] 9-10 min). The Triage device yielded a result within a median of 19 min (IQR 15-22 min); p < 0.001. The device failure rate for the central laboratory (8 failures, 3.2%) was significantly higher than that of the i-STAT device (1 failure, 0.4%, p = 0.04), but not statistically different than the Triage device (3 failures, 1.2%). Neither the Triage nor the i-STAT were statistically different than the central laboratory result in terms of sensitivity; the i-STAT was less specific than the Triage result (p = 0.003). The area under the curve for the Triage device was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-0.98), whereas the area under the curve for the i-STAT device was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Both POC devices tested were accurate and rarely failed; however, the i-STAT was faster with single use.