Early versus late discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and readmissions for permanent pacemaker implantation

Safety and feasibility of early discharge after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with ACURATE Neo-the POLESTAR trial

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) serves a growing range of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). TAVI has evolved to a streamlined procedure minimizing length of hospital stay.

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early discharge (ED) strategy after TAVI.

METHODS

We performed an international, multi-center, prospective observational single-arm study in AS patients undergoing TAVI with the ACURATE valve platform. Eligibility for ED was assessed prior to TAVI and based on prespecified selection criteria. Discharge ≤ 48 h was defined as ED. Primary Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3-defined 30-day safety and efficacy composite endpoints were landmarked at 48 h and compared between ED and non-ED groups.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included. The median age was 82 [25th-75th percentile, 78-85] years and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 2.2% [25th-75th percentile, 1.6-3.3]. ED and non-ED were achieved in 173 (69%) and 79 (31%) patients respectively. Monitoring for conduction disturbances was the principal reason for non-ED (33%). Overall, at 30 days, all-cause mortality was 1%, new permanent pacemaker rate was 4%, and valve- or procedure-related rehospitalization was 4%. There was no difference in the primary safety and efficacy endpoint between the ED and non-ED cohorts (OR 0.84 [25th-75th percentile, 0.31-2.26], p = 0.73, and OR 0.97 [25th-75th percentile, 0.46-2.06], p = 0.94). The need for rehospitalization was similarly low for ED and non-ED groups.

CONCLUSION

Early discharge after TAVI with the ACURATE valve is safe and feasible in selected patients. Rhythm monitoring and extended clinical observation protracted hospital stay.

Sex differences in outcomes of transvenous lead extraction: insights from National Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

With the growing use of implantable cardiac devices, the need for transvenous lead extraction has increased, which translates to increased procedural volumes. Sex differences in lead extraction outcomes are not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims at evaluating the impact of sex on outcomes of lead extraction.

METHODS

We identified 71,754 patients who presented between 2016 and 2019 and underwent transvenous lead extraction. Their clinical data were retrospectively accrued from the National Readmission Database (NRD) using the corresponding diagnosis codes. We compared clinical outcomes between male and female patients. Odds ratios (ORs) for the primary and secondary outcomes were calculated, and multivariable regression analysis was utilized to adjust for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Compared to male patients, female patients had higher in-hospital complications including pneumothorax (OR 1.26, 95% CI (1.07-1.4), P < 0.01), hemopericardium (OR 1.39, 95% CI (1.02-1.88), P = 0.036), injury to superior vena cava and innominate vein requiring repair (OR 1.88, 95% CI (1.14-3.1), P = 0.014; OR 3.4, 95% CI (1.8-6.5), P < 0.01), need for blood transfusion (OR 1.28, 95% CI (1.18-1.38), P < 0.01), and pericardiocentesis (OR 1.6, 95% CI (1.3-2), P < 0.01). Thirty-day readmission was also significantly higher in female patients (OR 1.09, 95% CI (1.02-1.17), P < 0.01). There was no significant difference regarding in-hospital mortality (OR 0.99, 95% CI (0.87-1.14), P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

In female patients, lead extraction is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission rate.