Dataset Information

Risk-Adjusted Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

ABSTRACT: Background Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is recommended for patients suffering from aortic valve stenosis at increased operative risk. Beyond that, patients with different comorbidities could benefit from TF-TAVR. The present study compares real-world in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement and TF-TAVR. Methods and Results For all 33 789 isolated TF-TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement procedures performed in Germany in 2014 and 2015, comorbidities and in-hospital outcomes were identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)- and OPS (Operation and procedure key)-codes. Patients undergoing TF-TAVR were older and at increased estimated risk. Outcomes were risk-adjusted to allow comparison. TF-TAVR was associated with a lower risk for acute kidney injuries (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, P<0.001), for bleeding (OR 0.17, P<0.001), and for prolonged mechanical ventilation (>48 hours, OR 0.21, P<0.001). Risk for stroke was similar (OR 1.07, P=0.558). As expected, the risk for pacemaker implantations was higher after TF-TAVR (OR 4.61, P<0.001). In all patients, none of the treatment strategies had a clear advantage on the risk for in-hospital mortality (OR 0.83, P=0.068). However, in patients aged >80 years and at high operative risk undergoing TF-TAVR in-hospital mortality was lower (TF-TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement 80-84, OR 0.55; P=0.002; ?85 years, OR 0.42, P=0.006; EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) >9: OR 0.62, P=0.001). TF-TAVR was superior in patients with renal failure and in NYHA (New York Heart Association)-Class III/IV. Other risk groups were not found to be factors favoring a treatment strategy. Conclusions The present study indicates a superiority of TF-TAVR in clinical practice for patients at increased operative risk, aged >80 years, in NYHA-Class III/IV, and with renal failure.

SUBMITTER: Stachon P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6509703 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk-Adjusted Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Stachon Peter P Kaier Klaus K Zirlik Andreas A Bothe Wolfgang W Heidt Timo T Zehender Manfred M Bode Christoph C von Zur Mühlen Constantin C

Journal of the American Heart Association 20190401 7

Background Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is recommended for patients suffering from aortic valve stenosis at increased operative risk. Beyond that, patients with different comorbidities could benefit from TF-TAVR. The present study compares real-world in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement and TF-TAVR. Methods and Results For all 33 789 isolated TF-TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement procedures performed in Germany in 2014 and 2015, comor ...[more]

PMID: 30897991

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresThe associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined.ResultsAmong the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.ObjectiveTo compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.ExposuresPrimary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.ResultsOverall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort. METHODS:Using data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ?3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities. RESULTS:In a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS:Among unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Dataset Information

Risk-Adjusted Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Publications

Risk-Adjusted Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets