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:ImportanceClinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time.Data sourcesCurrent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents.Study selectionComprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE.Data extraction and synthesisThe number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A).ResultsAcross 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.