Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with end stage renal disease

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.

Aortic Stenosis and Aortic Valve Replacement among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis (AS) can present with dyspnea, angina, syncope, and palpitations, and this presents a diagnostic challenge as chronic kidney disease (CKD) and other commonly found comorbid conditions may present similarly. While medical optimization is an important aspect in management, aortic valve replacement (AVR) by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the definitive treatment. Patients with concomitant CKD and AS require special consideration as it is known that CKD is associated with progression of AS and poor long-term outcomes.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to summarize and review the current existing literature on patients with both CKD and AS regarding disease progression, dialysis methods, surgical intervention, and postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of AS increases with age but has also been independently associated with CKD and furthermore with hemodialysis (HD). Regular dialysis with HD versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) and female gender have been associated with progression of AS. Management of AS is multidisciplinary and requires planning and interventions by the heart-kidney team to decrease the risk of further inducing kidney injury among high-risk population. Both TAVR and SAVR are effective interventions for patients with severe symptomatic AS, but TAVR has been associated with better short-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Special consideration must be given to patients with both CKD and AS. The choice of whether to undergo HD versus PD among patients with CKD is multifactorial, but studies have shown benefit regarding AS progression among those who undergo PD. The choice regarding AVR approach is likewise the same. TAVR has been associated with decreased complications among CKD patients, but the decision is multifactorial and requires a comprehensive discussion with the heart-kidney team as many other factors play a role in the decision including preference, prognosis, and other risk factors.

Clinical outcomes and cumulative healthcare costs of TAVR vs. SAVR in Asia

Objectives

This study compared transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of short- and long-term effectiveness.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study based on nationwide National Health Insurance claims data and Cause of Death data focused on adult patients (n = 3,643) who received SAVR (79%) or TAVR (21%) between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied to account for selection bias. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality (ACM), hospitalization for heart failure, and a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included medical utilization, hospital stay, and total medical costs at index admission for the procedure and in various post-procedure periods. The Cox proportional-hazard model with competing risk was used to investigate survival and incidental health outcomes. Generalized estimation equation (GEE) models were used to estimate differences in the utilization of medical resources and overall costs.

Results

After weighting, the mean age of the patients was 77.98 ± 5.86 years in the TAVR group and 77.98 ± 2.55 years in the SAVR group. More than half of the patients were female (53.94%). The incidence of negative outcomes was lower in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group, including 1-year ACM (11.39 vs. 17.98%) and 3-year ACM (15.77 vs. 23.85%). The risk of ACM was lower in the TAVR group (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.44–0.84]; P = 0.002) as was the risk of CV death (HR [95% CI]: 0.47 [0.30–0.74]; P = 0.001) or MACE (HR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.46–0.96]; P = 0.0274). Total medical costs were significantly higher in the TAVR group than in the SAVR in the first year after the procedure ($1,271.89 ± 4,048.36 vs. $887.20 ± 978.51; P = 0.0266); however, costs were similar in the second and third years after the procedure. The cumulative total medical costs after the procedure were significantly higher in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group (adjusted difference: $420.49 ± 176.48; P = 0.0172).

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR proved superior to SAVR in terms of clinical outcomes and survival with comparable medical utilization after the procedure.

Early outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), as pivotal randomised trials excluded patients with BAV pathology due to anatomic complexity.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to compare early outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in patients with BAV stenosis.

METHODS

We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) between 2016 and 2018 to identify adults who underwent TAVI or SAVR for BAV stenosis. The study's primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day and six-month major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We matched both cohorts using propensity score matching, and applied logistic and Cox-proportional hazard regression to compute the odds ratio (OR), the hazard ratio (HR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Out of 17,068 patients with BAV stenosis, 1,629 (9.5%) patients underwent TAVI and 15,439 (90.5%) underwent SAVR. After propensity score matching (PSM), we found 1,393 matched pairs. Of the matched pairs, 848 had complete six-month follow-ups. In the PSM cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.8%, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.93; p=0.035), and a similar rate of MACE at 30 days (1% vs 1.5%, OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.27-1.58; p=0.343) and at six months (4.2% vs 4.9%, HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.69; p=0.674), compared with SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the propensity score-matched cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality and a similar risk of 30-day and six-month MACE, supporting the feasibility of TAVI in BAV patients without a need for concurrent aortic root repair.

Preoperative Cardiovascular Assessment of the Renal Transplant Recipient: A Narrative Review

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease; it is the leading cause of death in these patients and the optimisation of their cardiovascular health may improve their post-transplant outcomes. Patients awaiting renal transplant often spend significant amounts of time on the waiting list allowing for the assessment and optimisation of their cardiovascular system. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is commonly seen in these patients and we explore the possible functional and anatomical investigations that can help assess and manage CAD in renal transplant candidates. We also discuss other aspects of cardiovascular assessment and management including arrhythmias, impaired ventricular function, valvular disease, lifestyle and pulmonary arterial hypertension. We hope that this review can form a basis for centres hoping to implement an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for renal transplantation.