Dataset Information

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database.

Methods and results

We utilized the nationally weighted 2012-16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.78) compared to re-SAVR.

Conclusion

In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Hirji SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7395321 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo identify outcomes of patients undergoing emergency transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and determine predictors of in-hospital mortality.BackgroundEmergency TAVR has emerged as a viable treatment strategy for patients with decompensated severe aortic stenosis and/or regurgitation; however, data on patients undergoing emergency TAVR are limited.MethodsAll emergency TAVR procedures were identified from a single tertiary academic center between January 2015 and August 2018.Results31 patients underwent emergency TAVR due to cardiogenic shock (26 patients), electrical instability with incessant ventricular tachycardia (2 patients), severe refractory angina (2 patients), and decompensated heart failure with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (1 patient). Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was used in 16 (51.6%). MCS initiation occurred immediately prior to TAVR in 10 patients and placed post-TAVR in 6 patients. 6 patients died before hospital discharge (in-hospital mortality 19.4%). 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 61.0% and 55.9%, respectively. Univariate predictors of in-hospital mortality were preprocedural pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) ≤1.8 (66.7% vs. 20.0%, p=0.01), intraprocedural cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (83.3% vs 4.0%, p ≤ 0.001), acute kidney injury post-TAVR (80.0% vs. 4.2%, p ≤ 0.001), initiation of dialysis post-TAVR (60.0% vs. 4.2%, p ≤ 0.001), and MCS initiation post-TAVR (50.0% vs. 12.0%, p=0.03). MCS initiation before TAVR was associated with improved survival compared with post-TAVR initiation.ConclusionEmergency TAVR in extreme risk patients with acute decompensated heart failure or cardiogenic shock secondary to severe aortic valve disease is associated with high in-hospital mortality rates. Careful patient selection taking into account right heart function, assessed by PAPi, and early utilization of MCS may improve survival following emergency TAVR.

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.