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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR): A Review on the Length of Stay, Cost, Comorbidities, and Procedural Complications

This review provides an in-depth analysis of the effect of length of stay (LOS), comorbidities, and procedural complications on the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We found that the average LOS was shorter for patients undergoing TAVR, contributing to lower average costs associated with the procedure, although the LOS varied between patients due to the severity of illness and comorbidities present. TAVR has also been found to improve the quality of life for patients receiving aortic valve replacement compared to SAVR. Although TAVR has a lower rate of most post-operative complications caused by SAVR, such as bleeding and cardiac complications, TAVR shows an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation due to mechanical trauma on the heart's conduction system. In addition, our findings suggest that the cost-effectiveness of each procedure varies based on the types of valve, the patient history of other medical conditions, and the procedural methods. Our findings show that TAVR is preferred over SAVR in terms of cost-effectiveness across a variety of patients with other coexisting medical conditions, including cancer, advanced kidney disease, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and bundle branch block. TAVR also appears to be superior to SAVR with fewer post-operative complications. However, TAVR appears to have a higher rate of PPM implantation rates as compared to SAVR. The comorbidities of the valve recipient must be considered when deciding whether to use TAVR or SAVR as cost-effectiveness varies with the patient background.

Analysis of the Changing Economics of US Hospital Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Programs

New technologies in medicine, even if they are promising medically, are often expensive and logistically difficult to implement at the hospital level. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a model technology that is revolutionary in treating aortic stenosis, but has been plagued with significant challenges with financial sustainability. In this article, a margin analysis at the hospital level was performed using literature data. A TAVR industry analysis was performed using Porter's Five Forces framework. The data indicate that TAVR is more expensive than surgical aortic valve replacement, although the cost of TAVR is declining with the use of an optimized minimalist protocol. The overall industry is growing as its clinical indications expand, and it will likely undergo significant reduction of costs when new valves enter the US market. As such, TAVR is a growing industry, with financial sustainability currently dependent on operational efficiency. A concluding list of specific program interventions is provided to help TAVR programs improve operational efficiency and clinical outcomes, as well as help decide whether to create, expand, or redirect funding for TAVR programs. Importantly, the frameworks used to analyze this rapidly evolving technology can be applied to other new technologies to determine financial sustainability.

Gender differences in incidence and in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain, 2001–15

Background

we aim to examine trends in the incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among women and men in Spain from 2001 to 2015; compare in-hospital outcomes for mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR by gender and; to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality (IHM) after SAVR.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study using the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database, 2001–15. We included patients that had SAVR as procedure in their discharge report. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to assess the impact of gender on the outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR.

Results

We identified 86 578 patients who underwent SAVR (40% women). Incidence of SVAR was higher in men (incidence rate ratio 1.57; 95%CI 1.55–1.59). In 2001, 73.36% of the men and 71.57% of women received a mechanical prosthesis; these proportions decreased to 43.04% in men and 35.89% in women in 2015, whereas bioprosthetic SAVR increased to 56.96% and 64.11%. After PSM we found that IHM was higher in women than in matched men for mechanical (8.94% vs. 6.79%; P < 0.001) and bioprosthetic (6.51 vs. 5.42%; P = 0.001) SAVR. The mean length of hospital stay was longer (19.54 vs. 18.74 days; P < 0.001) among females than males undergoing mechanical SAVR. Higher IHM after SAVR was associated with older age, comorbidities (except diabetes and atrial fibrillation), concomitant coronary artery bypass graft and emergency room admission.

Conclusions

This nation-wide analysis over 15 years of gender-specific outcomes after SAVR showed that, after PSM women have significantly higher IHM after mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR than men.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in nonagenarians.

BACKGROUND

Data comparing the outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in nonagenarians are limited.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.