In-hospital outcomes of TAVR patients with a bundle branch block: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample 2011-2018

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.

The degree of permanent pacemaker dependence and clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: implications for procedural technique

Aims

Conduction abnormalities necessitating permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain the most frequent complication post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), yet reliance on PPM function varies. We evaluated the association of right-ventricular (RV)-stimulation rate post-TAVI with 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization).

Methods and results

This retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVI in two high-volume centers included patients with existing PPM pre-TAVI or new PPM post-TAVI. There was a bimodal distribution of RV-stimulation rates stratifying patients into two groups of either low [≤10%: 1.0 (0.0, 3.6)] or high [>10%: 96.0 (54.0, 99.9)] RV-stimulation rate post-TAVI. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated comparing MACE in patients with high vs. low RV-stimulation rates post-TAVI. Of 4659 patients, 408 patients (8.6%) had an existing PPM pre-TAVI and 361 patients (7.7%) underwent PPM implantation post-TAVI. Mean age was 82.3 ± 8.1 years, 39% were women. A high RV-stimulation rate (>10%) development post-TAVI is associated with a two-fold increased risk for MACE [1.97 (1.20, 3.25), P = 0.008]. Valve implantation depth was an independent predictor of high RV-stimulation rate [odds ratio (95% CI): 1.58 (1.21, 2.06), P=<0.001] and itself associated with MACE [1.27 (1.00, 1.59), P = 0.047].

Conclusion

Greater RV-stimulation rates post-TAVI correlate with increased 1-year MACE in patients with new PPM post-TAVI or in those with existing PPM but low RV-stimulation rates pre-TAVI. A shallower valve implantation depth reduces the risk of greater RV-stimulation rates post-TAVI, correlating with improved patient outcomes. These data highlight the importance of a meticulous implant technique even in TAVI recipients with pre-existing PPMs.