In-hospital outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for nonagenarians.

To compare the in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in nonagenarians. Data comparing the outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in nonagenarians are limited. Using the National Inpatient Sample years 2012-2014, hospitalization data were retrieved for subjects aged ≥90 years who underwent TAVR or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis. The incidence of in-hospital mortality and peri-procedural outcomes were compared using unadjusted, multivariate logistic regression, and propensity score matched analyses. The final cohort included 6,680 records of nonagenarians undergoing aortic valve replacement, among which 5,840 (87.4%) underwent TAVR. There was no difference in the incidence of in-hospital mortality between both groups in the unadjusted (5.8% versus 6.0% P = 0.95), multivariate (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-1.74), and propensity score matched (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.51) analyses. In the propensity-matched analysis, TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.72), post-operative blood transfusion (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.61), a higher likelihood of discharge to home (OR 4.71, 95% 3.44-5.06), and a similar incidence of pacemaker placement (OR 1.16, 95% 0.89-1.53) and stroke (OR 1.34, 0.90-1.99). In this nationwide analysis, TAVR was associated with an overall similar incidence of in-hospital mortality and less morbidity compared with SAVR. These findings suggest that TAVR is effective and safe in nonagenarians.

Elgendy IY ，Mahmoud AN ，Elbadawi A ，Elgendy AY ，Omer MA ，Megaly M ，Mojadidi MK ，Jneid H ... -  《-》

In-hospital outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in non-teaching hospitals.

To assess the in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in non-teaching hospitals. TAVR has become widely available in the United States. However, the comparative outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in non-teaching hospitals are largely under explored. We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2011 to September 2015 to identify those who were 50 years or above and underwent either trans-arterial TAVR or SAVR at non-teaching hospital. In-hospital clinical outcomes were compared with odds ratio (OR) in propensity-matched cohorts. We identified un-weighted 957 and 7,465 SAVR admissions. In propensity-matched model, 596 admissions in each arm were included for final analysis. In-patient mortality (3.9 vs. 2.5%, OR 1.54, P = 0.34), acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (2.2 vs. 2.7%, OR 0.80, P = 0.57), stroke (2.0 vs. 3.2%, OR 0.61, P = 0.20), and pacemaker placement (8.9 vs. 6.4%, OR 1.47, P = 0.09) was similar between TAVR and SAVR. Sub-group analysis showed that female and those with prior coronary artery bypass surgery had higher risk of in-patient morality in TAVR admission. Cost was higher (59,103 vs. 53,411 dollars, P = 0.006) but length of stay was shorter in TAVR (6.9 vs. 10.2 days, P < 0.001). TAVR conferred similar in-hospital mortality and major peri-procedural complications compared with SAVR in non-teaching hospitals. For those with limited access to teaching hospitals, non-teaching hospitals appear to be a reasonable option for candidates of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.

Ando T ，Adegbala O ，Villablanca PA ，Briasoulis A ，Takagi H ，Grines CL ，Schreiber T ，Nazif T ，Kodali S ，Afonso L ... -  《-》

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.

The purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population. Randomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking. The study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS. The analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (ptrend = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. This nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS.

Elbadawi A ，Saad M ，Elgendy IY ，Barssoum K ，Omer MA ，Soliman A ，Almahmoud MF ，Ogunbayo GO ，Mentias A ，Gilani S ，Jneid H ，Aronow HD ，Kleiman N ，Abbott JD ... -  《-》

Hospital outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in female in the United States.

To assess the in-hospital mortality and complications in female between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Female is one of the risk factors for increased adverse events in cardiac surgery. Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2011 to 2014 for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR in female patients. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause mortality and second endpoints were perioperative complications. We performed a propensity score analysis to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for each outcome. Patients who had concomitant cardiac surgery and those who had TAVR or SAVR mainly for aortic regurgitation were excluded. Our query from 2011 to 2014 resulted in a total of 3,067 TAVR and 18,594 SAVR in female patients. TAVR patients were in general elder and had a higher burden of comorbidities. The primary endpoint was similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.2% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.0, P = 0.89). Compared to SAVR, female TAVR patients had less hemorrhage requiring transfusion (12% vs. 21%, OR 0.41, P < 0.001), perioperative cardiac arrest and nonfatal myocardial infarction (9.8% vs. 17%, OR 0.38, P < 0.001), respiratory complication (1.6% vs. 4.4%, OR 0.28, P < 0.001), post-op sepsis (1.7% vs. 2.9%, OR 0.65, P = 0.03), acute myocardial infarction (3.0% vs. 4.9%, OR 0.60, P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (15% vs. 18%, OR 0.62, P < 0.001). Conversely, female TAVR patients had significantly increased risk of new pacemaker implantation (11% vs. 5.9%, OR 1.7, P < 0.001) and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.66% vs. 0.24%, OR 2.8, P < 0.001). TAVR patients had less nonroutine discharge. The median hospital cost was significantly higher in TAVR than SAVR (median $51,274 vs. $43,677, P < 0.001) but the length of stay was shorter (mean 7.8 days vs. 10.5 days). TAVR may be a better option for those patients with underlying comorbidities that predispose them at higher risk for complications that was less observed in TAVR group. However, higher cost and increased risk of need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, although rare, should be taken into consideration upon deciding the optimal mode for aortic valve replacement.

Ando T ，Akintoye E ，Telila T ，Briasoulis A ，Takagi H ，Schreiber T ，Afonso L ，Grines CL ... -  《-》

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients: An updated meta-analysis.

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients. TAVR is proven to be safe and effective in patients with high- and intermediate-risk aortic stenosis. However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of TAVR in patients with low surgical risk. We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared TAVR to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients (mean society for thoracic surgery [STS] score <4% and/or logistic EuroScore <10%) and reported on subsequent all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke rates, and other outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared with a forest plot of odds ratio using a random-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. A total of seven studies (n = 6,293 patients; TAVR = 2,912; and SAVR = 3,381) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.50-1.36, I2 = 51%), cardiac mortality (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.02, I2 = 0%), new pacemaker implantation (OR = 3.11; 95% CI 0.58-16.60, I2 = 89%), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL; OR 3.50; 95% CI 0.64-19.10, I2 = 54%) and rate of stroke (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.34-1.15, I2 = 39%) at 1-year follow-up. TAVR was found to have a significantly lower incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10-0.24, I2 = 38%) as compared to SAVR. The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate similar rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stroke at 1-year follow-up in patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR. TAVR is associated with a lower incidence of AF relative to SAVR. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of PVL with TAVR compared to SAVR.

Goel S ，Pasam RT ，Wats K ，Patel J ，Chava S ，Gotesman J ，Malik BA ，Frankel R ，Shani J ，Gidwani U ... -  《-》