Dataset Information

Sex Differences in the Utilization and Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis.

ABSTRACT: Studies assessing the differential impact of sex on outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) yielded conflicting results. We sought to investigate sex-related differences in AVR utilization, patient risk profile, and in-hospital outcomes using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.In total, 166 809 patients (63% male and 37% female) who underwent AVR between 2003 and 2014 were identified, and 48.5% had a concomitant cardiac surgery procedure. Compared with men, women were older and had more nonatherosclerotic comorbid conditions including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, and anemia but fewer incidences of coronary and peripheral arterial disease and prior sternotomies. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in women (5.6% versus 4%, P<0.001). Propensity matching was performed to assess the impact of sex on the outcomes of isolated AVR and yielded 28 237 matched pairs of male and female participants. In the propensity-matched groups, in-hospital mortality was higher in women (3.3% versus 2.9%, P<0.001). Along with vascular complications and blood transfusion (6% versus 5.6%, P=0.027 and 40.4% versus 33.9%, P<0.001, respectively). Rates of stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis were similar (2.4% versus 2.4%, P=0.99; 6% versus 6.3%, P=0.15; and 1.4% versus 1.3%, P=0.14, respectively). Length of stay median and interquartile range were both similar between groups (7±6 days). Rates of nonhome discharge were higher among women (27.9% versus 19.6%, P<0.001).Women have worse in-hospital mortality following AVR compared with men. Coupled with the accumulating evidence suggesting higher magnitude of benefit of transcatheter AVR over AVR in women, women should perhaps be offered transcatheter AVR over AVR at a lower threshold than men.

SUBMITTER: Chaker Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5634288 | biostudies-other | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sex Differences in the Utilization and Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Chaker Zakeih Z Badhwar Vinay V Alqahtani Fahad F Aljohani Sami S Zack Chad J CJ Holmes David R DR Rihal Charanjit S CS Alkhouli Mohamad M

Journal of the American Heart Association 20170921 9

<h4>Background</h4>Studies assessing the differential impact of sex on outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) yielded conflicting results. We sought to investigate sex-related differences in AVR utilization, patient risk profile, and in-hospital outcomes using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.<h4>Methods and results</h4>In total, 166 809 patients (63% male and 37% female) who underwent AVR between 2003 and 2014 were identified, and 48.5% had a concomitant cardiac surgery procedure. Compared w ...[more]

PMID: 28935681

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:Recently, two randomized trials, the PARTNER 3 and the Evolut Low Risk Trial, independently demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk, paving the way to a progressive extension of clinical indications to TAVR. We designed a meta-analysis to compare TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131125). Randomized studies comparing one-year outcomes of TAVR or SAVR were searched for within Medline, Scholar and Scopus electronic databases. A total of three randomized studies were selected, including nearly 3000 patients. After one year, the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33-0.95; p = 0.03). Conversely, no differences were observed between the groups for one-year all-cause mortality (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.42-1.07; p = 0.10). Among the secondary endpoints, patients undergoing TAVR have lower risk of new-onset of atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.39; p < 0.00001), major bleeding (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.65; p < 0.002) and acute kidney injury stage II or III (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14-0.58; p = 0.0005). Conversely, TAVR was associated to a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (RR = 3.96; 95% CI 1.31-11.99; p = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 1.33-9.07; p = 0.01) compared to SAVR. No differences were observed between the groups in the risks of stroke (RR= 0.71; 95% CI 0.41-1.25; p = 0.24), transient ischemic attack (TIA; RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.53-1.83; p = 0.96), and MI (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43-1.29; p = 0.29). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis, including three randomized studies and nearly 3000 patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, shows that TAVR is associated with lower CV death compared to SAVR at one-year follow-up. Nevertheless, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation still represent two weak spots that should be solved.

Dataset Information

Sex Differences in the Utilization and Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Publications

Sex Differences in the Utilization and Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets