Dataset Information

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices.

ABSTRACT: The superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully demonstrated in a real-world setting. This prospective study included 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2012 and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 to 2018 from the prospective multicenter observational studies OBSERVANT I and II. Early adverse events as well as all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and hospital readmission due to heart failure at 1-year were investigated. Among 1008 propensity score matched pairs, TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality (1.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.020), stroke (0.8 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (0.6 vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (5.9 vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (13.8 vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001) were more frequent after TAVR. At 1-year, TAVR was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (7.9 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.006), MACCE (12.0 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.011), readmission due to heart failure (10.8 vs. 15.9%, p < 0.001), and stroke (3.2 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033) compared to SAVR. TAVR reduced 1-year mortality in the subgroups of patients aged 80 years or older (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.71), in females (HR 0.57, 0.38-0.85), and among patients with EuroSCORE II ≥ 4.0% (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.71). In a real-world setting, TAVR using new-generation devices was associated with lower rates of adverse events up to 1-year follow-up compared to SAVR.

SUBMITTER: Rosato S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8396948 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices.

Rosato Stefano S Biancari Fausto F D'Errigo Paola P Barbanti Marco M Tarantini Giuseppe G Bedogni Francesco F Ranucci Marco M Costa Giuliano G Juvonen Tatu T Ussia Gian Paolo GP Marcellusi Andrea A Baglio Giovanni G Cicala Stefano Domenico SD Badoni Gabriella G Seccareccia Fulvia F Tamburino Corrado C On Behalf Of The Observant Ii Research Group

Journal of clinical medicine 20210820 16

The superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully demonstrated in a real-world setting. This prospective study included 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2012 and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 to 2018 from the prospective multicenter observational studies OBSERVANT I and II. Early adverse events as well as all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MAC ...[more]

PMID: 34441998

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccumulated experience and advances in device technology have led to the increasing off-label use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for pure native aortic valve regurgitation (PNAR). This study aimed to evaluate the procedural and long-term outcomes of using newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) versus early-generation self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) to treat PNAR.MethodsTAVRs were performed with the use of early- (N=15) and newer-generation (N=10) THVs in a total of 25 consecutive PNAR patients at an intermediate-to-high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement [mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 6.8±4.5]. Procedural and clinical outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria. The primary end-point of the study was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), disabling stroke, and readmission due to heart failure.ResultsThe device success rate of the newer-generation THVs was significantly higher than that of the early-generation CoreValve (100% vs. 33%, P<0.01), which was mainly driven by less frequent need for implanting a second THV (0% vs. 53%, P<0.01). Although the procedural success rates were 100% for both early- and newer-generation valves, the mean procedure fluoroscopic times which the newer-generation device group required, were significantly shorter (P<0.01) and the amount of contrast medium used in this group, markedly smaller (P<0.01), compared to those of the early-generation CoreValve group. During a median follow-up of 14 months, event-free survival was better in patients undergoing TAVR with the newer-generation THVs, although the differences were not statistically significant (log-rank test, P=0.137). According to multivariate analysis, a higher baseline STS score and longer intensive care unit stays are independent predictors of adverse outcomes.ConclusionsEvidently, the treatment of PNAR with TAVR using the newer-generation THVs yielded better procedural outcomes and is a valuable therapeutic option in selective patients.KeywordsTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); pure native aortic regurgitation (AR); transcatheter heart valves (THVs); procedural and clinical outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceHospital outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be dependent on the quality of evaluation, personnel, and procedural and postprocedural care common to patients undergoing cardiac surgery.ObjectivesWe sought to assess whether those hospitals with better patient outcomes for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) subsequently achieved better TAVR outcomes after launching TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis national cohort included US patients 65 years and older. The analysis used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicare Provider and Review data collected between January 1, 2010, and September 29, 2015. Only hospitals performing at least 1 SAVR prior to September 1, 2011, and performing at least 1 TAVR after this date were included in the analysis. Data analysis was completed from June 2018 to August 2018.InterventionsIsolated aortic valve replacements.Main outcomes and measuresHospital risk-adjusted 30-day mortality for SAVR in the pre-TAVR period was used as a surrogate for SAVR quality. Thirty-day and 1-year TAVR mortality rates were examined after stratification by quartile of baseline hospital risk-adjusted SAVR mortality.ResultsA total of 51 924 TAVR procedures were performed in 519 hospitals, of which 19 798 were performed at hospitals in quartile 1 (the lowest risk-adjusted SAVR mortality rate), 7663 were performed in quartile 2, 10 180 were performed in quartile 3, and 14 283 were performed in quartile 4 (the highest risk-adjusted SAVR mortality rate). Observed mortality rates at 30 days consistently increased with increasing baseline hospital SAVR risk-adjusted mortality (quartile 1, 917 patients [4.6%]; quartile 2, 381 [5.0%]; quartile 3, 521 [5.1%]; quartile 4, 800 [5.6%]; P < .001). The same pattern was observed in 1-year mortality (quartile 1, 3359 [17.0%]; quartile 2, 1337 [17.5%]; quartile 3, 1852 [18.2%]; quartile 4, 2652 [18.6%]; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, compared with the lowest quartile of SAVR mortality, undergoing TAVR at a hospital with higher baseline SAVR mortality continued to be associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratios: quartile 2, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.87-1.21]; quartile 3, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.26]; quartile 4, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07-1.40]; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratios: quartile 2, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92-1.17]; quartile 3, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.28]; quartile 4, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05-1.28]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with higher SAVR mortality rates also had higher short-term and long-term TAVR mortality after initiating TAVR programs. Quality of cardiac surgical care may be associated with a hospital's performance with new structural heart disease programs.

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.

Dataset Information

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices.

Publications

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets