Dataset Information

Geographic Access to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers in the United States: Insights From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Geographic access to transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) centers varies in the United States as a result of controlled expansion through minimum volume requirements.

Objective

To describe the current geographic access to TAVR centers in the United States.

Design, setting, and participants

Observational study from June 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. United States census data were used to describe access to TAVR center. Google Maps and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were used to describe characteristics of patients undergoing successful TAVR according to proximity to implanting center. The study analyzed 47 527 537 individuals 65 years and older in the United States and 31 098 patients who underwent successful transfemoral TAVR, were linked to fee-for-service Medicare, and had a measurable driving time.

Main outcomes and measures

Median driving distance to a TAVR center.

Results

Among 40 537 zip codes in the United States, 490 (1.2%) contained a TAVR center, and among 305 hospital referral regions (HRR), 234 (76.7%) contained a TAVR center. Of the 31 749 patients who underwent successful transfemoral TAVR and were linked to fee-for-service Medicare, 31 098 had a measurable driving time. Mean (SD) age was 82.4 (6.9) years, 14 697 patients (47.3%) were women, and 7422 (23.87%) lived in a rural area. This translated to 1 232 568 of 47 527 537 individuals (2.6%) 65 years and older living in a zip code with a TAVR center and 43 789 169 (92.1%) living in an HRR with a TAVR center. Among 31 749 patients who underwent successful transfemoral TAVR and were linked to fee-for-service Medicare, 31 098 had a measurable driving time. All of these patients (100.0%) underwent their procedure in a TAVR center within their HRR, with 1350 (4.3%) undergoing TAVR in a center within their home zip code. Median driving time to implanting TAVR center was 35.0 minutes (IQR, 20.0-70.0 minutes), ranging from 2.0 minutes to 18 hours and 48 minutes.

Conclusions and relevance

Most US individuals 65 years and older live in an HRR with a TAVR center. Among patients undergoing successful transfemoral TAVR, median driving time to implanting center was 35.0 minutes. Within the context of the US health care system, where certain advanced procedures and specialized care are centralized, TAVR services have significant penetration. More studies are required to evaluate the effect of geographic location of TAVR sites on access to TAVR procedures among individuals with an indication for a TAVR within the US population.

SUBMITTER: Marquis-Gravel G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7287974 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to develop and validate a risk adjustment model for 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) that accounted for both standard clinical factors and pre-procedural health status and frailty. BACKGROUND:Assessment of risk for TAVR is important both for patient selection and provider comparisons. Prior efforts for risk adjustment have focused on in-hospital mortality, which is easily obtainable but can be biased because of early discharge of ill patients. METHODS:Using data from patients who underwent TAVR as part of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry (June 2013 to May 2016), a hierarchical logistic regression model to estimate risk for 30-day mortality after TAVR based only on pre-procedural factors and access site was developed and internally validated. The model included factors from the original TVT Registry in-hospital mortality model but added the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (health status) and gait speed (5-m walk test). RESULTS:Among 21,661 TAVR patients at 188 sites, 1,025 (4.7%) died within 30 days. Independent predictors of 30-day death included older age, low body weight, worse renal function, peripheral artery disease, home oxygen, prior myocardial infarction, left main coronary artery disease, tricuspid regurgitation, nonfemoral access, worse baseline health status, and inability to walk. The predicted 30-day mortality risk ranged from 1.1% (lowest decile of risk) to 13.8% (highest decile of risk). The model was able to stratify risk on the basis of patient factors with good discrimination (C = 0.71 [derivation], C = 0.70 [split-sample validation]) and excellent calibration, both overall and in key patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:A clinical risk model was developed for 30-day death after TAVR that included clinical data as well as health status and frailty. This model will facilitate tracking outcomes over time as TAVR expands to lower risk patients and to less experienced sites and will allow an objective comparison of short-term mortality rates across centers.

Project description:BackgroundStroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has persisted despite refinements in technique and increased operator experience. While cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been developed to mitigate this risk, data regarding their impact on stroke and other outcomes after TAVR are limited.MethodsWe performed an observational study using data from the Society for Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients were included if they underwent elective or urgent transfemoral TAVR between January 2018 and December 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. To adjust for confounding, the association between EPD use and clinical outcomes was evaluated using instrumental variable analysis, a technique designed to support causal inference from observational data, with site-level preference for EPD use within the same quarter of the procedure as the instrument. We also performed a propensity score-based secondary analysis using overlap weights.ResultsOur analytic sample included 123 186 patients from 599 sites. The use of EPD during TAVR increased over time, reaching 28% of sites and 13% of TAVR procedures by December 2019. There was wide variation in EPD use across hospitals, with 8% of sites performing >50% of TAVR procedures with an EPD and 72% performing no procedures with an EPD in the last quarter of 2019. In our primary analysis using the instrumental variable model, there was no association between EPD use and in-hospital stroke (adjusted relative risk, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.68-1.13]; absolute risk difference, -0.15% [95% CI, -0.49 to 0.20]). However, in our secondary analysis using the propensity score-based model, EPD use was associated with 18% lower odds of in-hospital stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]; absolute risk difference, -0.28% [95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03]). Results were generally consistent across the secondary end points, as well as subgroup analyses.ConclusionsIn this nationally representative observational study, we did not find an association between EPD use for TAVR and in-hospital stroke in our primary instrumental variable analysis, and found only a modestly lower risk of in-hospital stroke in our secondary propensity-weighted analysis. These findings provide a strong basis for large-scale randomized, controlled trials to test whether EPDs provide meaningful clinical benefit for patients undergoing TAVR.