Patient reported experience measures in TAVI procedures: VALVEX study.
10.26599/1671-5411.2025.07.009
- Author:
Miryam GONZÁLEZ-CEBRIAN
1
;
Jose Luis Mendoza GARCÍA
2
;
Ignacio CRUZ-GONZÁLEZ
1
;
Sara Alonso MELÉNDEZ
1
;
Rocio Castillo POYO
3
;
Raquel Zafrilla NIETO
3
;
Pedro L SÁNCHEZ
1
;
Cristina Ruiz SEGRIA
4
;
Elena Calvo BARRIUSO
5
Author Information
1. Cardiology Department, University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
2. Servicio de Medicina Preventiva, University Hospital of Torrevieja, Alicante, Spain.
3. Cardiology Department, University Hospital of Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain.
4. GRIN-IDIBELL, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.
5. CIBER-CV Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Madrid, Spain.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- From:
Journal of Geriatric Cardiology
2025;22(7):638-647
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has changed the treatment paradigm of the aortic stenosis (AS). It has become the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic AS and surgical high risk, and a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with low and medium surgical risk. Despite numerous evidence on clinical results, indications and benefits, only a few studies analyse it from patient's perspective and the impact of TAVI on them. The objective of this study is to evaluate the experience of patients undergoing TAVI.
METHODS:Cross-sectional, descriptive observational study in two Spanish hospitals, with a establish Nurse TAVI program, with 100 patients undergoing TAVI. A specific questionnaire was designed (VALVEX questionnaire) and a pilot study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of doctors, nurses and patients. The questionnaire was given to patients at 30 days after TAVI procedure during the follow up at the TAVI nurse clinic.
RESULTS:The study demonstrated a mean satisfaction of 9 for the TAVI program, with 96% of patients that would recommend TAVI to other patients. Patients scored a high satisfaction on the information received prior to the procedure. During the procedure and admission, the satisfaction was high in relation to the care received. During the follow up, satisfaction was high in relation to the role of the TAVI nurse, for the information and continuation of care during the procedure, in reducing anxiety, organising their admission and understanding the process. However, questions with less scores were related to hospital catering, delay between diagnosed and treatment, and patient decision-making process.
CONCLUSION:The evaluation of patient experience allows us to improve the information given to the patient during their TAVI process and it can also allow patients to be more relax, aware and prepared for the procedure. Continuous follow up enables monitoring of patient recovery and helps to discuss any doubts improving patient's satisfaction. The use of PREMs and PROMs associated to TAVI pathway combined with an active participation of the patient on the design of the questionnaire is essential for keeping the patient in the centre of the TAVI pathway.
