IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Futility in TAVI: A scoping review of definitions, predictive criteria, and medical predictive models

Author

Listed:
  • Charlie Ferry
  • Jade Fiery-Fraillon
  • Mario Togni
  • Stephane Cook

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedures are rapidly expanding, necessitating a more extensive stratification of patients with aortic stenosis. Especially in the high-risk group, some patients fail to derive optimal or any benefits from TAVI, leading to the risk of futile interventions. Despite consensus among several experts regarding the importance of recognizing and anticipating such interventions, the definition, and predictive criteria for futility in TAVI remain ambiguous. Aim: The purpose of this study is to explore the literature addressing the definition, predictive criteria, and medical predictive models for futility in cases of TAVI. Design: A scoping review was conducted by two researchers and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Eligibility criteria: Studies addressing futility in TAVI, including definitions, predictive variables, and models, were included without restrictions on study design but were excluded study only on surgical valve replacement, valve in valve or aortic stenosis causes by other pathology than calcification. Information sources: We identified 129 studies from five key sources: CINAHL, PUBMED, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE. The literature search was conducted in two rounds—first in February 2024 and again in October 2024—using no restrictions on the year of publication or the language of the studies. Additional references were included through cross-referencing. Results: The definition of futility is not unanimous, although most researchers agreed on 1-year survival as a cutoff. The majority of studies focused on single variables that can predict 1-year survival, employing either prospective or retrospective designs. Frailty was the major concept studied. Numerous predictive models have been identified, but no consensus was found. Conclusion: Futility concepts generate interest in the TAVI procedure. In this review, numerous articles state that 1-year mortality serves as a cutoff to define futile procedures. Some variables, cardiac or otherwise, are independent predictors of 1-year mortality. Medical predictive models showed moderate sensitivity and specificity, except for machine learning, which shows promise for the future. However, few articles delve deeply into non-quantifiable parameters such as patient goals and objectives or ethical questions. More studies should focus on these parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlie Ferry & Jade Fiery-Fraillon & Mario Togni & Stephane Cook, 2025. "Futility in TAVI: A scoping review of definitions, predictive criteria, and medical predictive models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313399
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313399
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313399&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313399?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.