Clinical outcome and predictors for adverse events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the use of different devices and access routes

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Previous reports focused on a single device or access site, whereas little is known of the combined use of different devices and access sites as selected by the heart team. The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes of TAVI using different devices and access sites. Methods A consecutive cohort of 200 patients underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system (Medtronic Core Valve LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 130) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 70) implanted by either the transfemoral or transapical access route. Results Device success and procedure success were 99% and 95%, respectively, without differences between devices and access site. All-cause mortality was 7.5% at 30 days, with no differences between valve types or access sites. Using multivariable analysis, low body mass index (<20 kg/m2) (odds ratio [OR] 6.6, 95% CI 1.5-29.5) and previous stroke (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.8) were independent risk factors for short-term mortality. The VARC-defined combined safety end point occurred in 18% of patients and was driven by major access site complications (8.0%), life-threatening bleeding (8.5%) or severe renal failure (4.5%). Transapical access emerged as independent predictor of adverse outcome for the Valve Academic Research Consortium–combined safety end point (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.1). Conclusion A heart team–based selection of devices and access site among patients undergoing TAVI resulted in high device and procedural success. Low body mass index and history of previous stroke were independent predictors of mortality. Transapical access emerged as a risk factor for the Valve Academic Research Consortium–combined safety end point.

Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular in survey research including stated preference surveys. Compared with face-to-face, telephone and mail surveys, web surveys may contain a different and new source of measurement error and bias: the type of device that respondents use to answer the survey questions. This is the first study that tests whether the use of mobile devices, tablets or smartphones, affects survey characteristics and stated preferences in a web-based choice experiment. The web survey on expanding renewable energy production in Germany was carried out with 3182 respondents, of which 12% used a mobile device. Propensity score matching is used to account for selection bias in the use of mobile devices for survey completion. We find that mobile device users spent more time than desktop/laptop users to answer the survey. Yet, desktop/laptop users and mobile device users do not differ in acquiescence tendency as an indicator of extreme response patterns. For mobile device users only, we find a negative correlation between screen size and interview length and a positive correlation between screen size and acquiescence tendency. In the choice experiment data, we do not find significant differences in the tendency to choose the status quo option and scale between both subsamples. However, some of the estimates of implicit prices differ, albeit not in a unidirectional fashion. Model results for mobile device users indicate a U-shaped relationship between error variance and screen size. Together, the results suggest that using mobile devices is not detrimental to survey quality.