Volume-outcome relationships for transcatheter aortic valve replacement-risk-adjusted and volume stratified analysis of TAVR outcomes

Pericardiocentesis Outcomes in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension: A Nationwide Analysis from the United States

Pericardiocentesis (PC) in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) and pericardial effusions has unclear benefits because it has been associated with acute hemodynamic collapse and increased mortality. Data on in-hospital outcomes in this population are limited. The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify adult patients who underwent PC during hospitalizations between 2016 and 2020. Data were stratified by the presence or absence of PH. A multivariate regression model and case-control matching was used to estimate the association of PH with PC in-hospital outcomes. A total of 95,665 adults with a procedure diagnosis of PC were included, of whom 7,770 had PH. Patients with PH tended to be older (aged 67 ± 15.7 years) and female (56%) and less frequently presented with tamponade (44.9% vs 52.4%). Patients with PH had significantly higher rates of chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and chronic lung disease, among other co-morbidities. In the multivariate analysis, PC in PH was associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.40, confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 1.51) and higher rates of postprocedure shock (aOR 1.53, CI 1.30 to 1.81) than patients without PH. Mortality was higher in those with pulmonary arterial hypertension than other nonpulmonary arterial hypertension PH groups (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.80, p <0.001). The rates of cardiogenic shock (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.61), acute respiratory failure (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.64), and mechanical circulatory support use (aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.12) were also higher in patients with PH. There was no significant volume-outcome relation between hospitals with a high per-annum pericardiocentesis volume compared with low-volume hospitals in these patients. In conclusion, PC is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and higher rates of cardiovascular complications in patients with PH, regardless of the World Health Organization PH group.

Effect of institutional transcatheter aortic valve replacement volume on mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine the association between institutional transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) volume and all-cause mortality.

BACKGROUND

Since inception in 2011, there has been an exponential increase in the number of TAVR centers across the world. Multiple studies have questioned if a relationship exists between institutional TAVR volume and patient outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for relevant articles using a combination of free text terms in the title/abstract related to volume, TAVR, and patient outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts for eligibility based on pre-specified criteria. All-cause mortality data was pooled from eligible studies and centers were categorized as low-(30-50 cases), intermediate-, or high-volume (75-130 cases) based on their annual TAVR volumes.

RESULTS

Our search yielded an initial list of 11,153 citations, 120 full text studies were reviewed and 7 studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding a total of 1,93,498 TAVRs. Categorized according to center's annual volume; 25,062 TAVRs were performed in low-, 77,093 in intermediate- and 91,343 in high-volume centers. Network meta-analysis showed a relative reduction in mortality rates of 37%, 23% and 19%, for high volume versus low volume centers, high volume versus intermediate volume centers and intermediate versus low volume centers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing research clearly shows an inverse relationship between annual TAVR procedural volume and all-cause mortality. We need to focus on development of strong referral networks and consolidation rather than expansion of existing TAVR centers to improve patient outcomes, while ensuring adequate access-to-care.

Veterans Affairs Heart Team Experience With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Minimally Invasive Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve disease is prevalent in the veteran population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) are minimally invasive approaches predominantly performed at higher-volume cardiac centers. The study aim was to evaluate our experience with minimally invasive techniques at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), since outcomes from lower-volume federal facilities are relatively unknown.

METHODS

This study examined retrospective data from 228 consecutive patients who underwent treatment for isolated aortic valve disease with MIAVR or TAVR via intent-to-treat at a VAMC between January 2011 and July 2017. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed using Stata version 15.

RESULTS

Operative mortality was 1.1% for MIAVR and 0.7% for TAVR (Χ² P=.79). Median length of hospital stay was 10 days (interquartile range [IQR], 7-14 days) for MIAVR and 4 days for TAVR (IQR, 3-6 days; Mann-Whitney P<.001). Postoperative new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 52% of MIAVR patients and 5.2% of TAVR patients (Χ² P<.001). Stroke occurred in 2.2% of MIAVR patients and 3.0% of TAVR patients (Χ² P=.71). In patients who underwent MIAVR, 5.4% required placement of a permanent pacemaker postoperatively, compared with 14% of TAVR patients (Χ² P=.04). Mild paravalvular leak (PVL) affected 2.2% of MIAVR and 28% of TAVR patients, with moderate PVL reported in 2.2% of MIAVR and 3% of TAVR patients (Χ² P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The VAMC heart team offers MIAVR and TAVR to veterans with isolated aortic valve disease, and has achieved excellent outcomes despite relatively lower case volumes. Both offer excellent hemodynamic results, with low mortality in a complex population.

TAVR Procedural Volumes and Patient Outcomes: Analysis of Recent Data

In less than 15 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has progressed from a procedure of last resort in patients at prohibitively high perioperative risk for major morbidity and mortality from surgical valve replacement to a viable alternative option to surgery in most patients with native (non-bicuspid) aortic valve stenosis. The number of medical centers offering TAVR has rapidly proliferated. There is mounting evidence that there are variations in patient outcomes associated with the yearly number of TAVR cases performed at each respective center. This review outlines the evolution of TAVR indications, common complications, the current literature addressing the association between procedural volumes and patient outcomes in TAVR, and offers a synopsis of risk factor assessment for patients considered for TAVR.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Episode Payments and Relationship to Case Volume

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased in volume as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Comparisons of total episode expenditures, although largely ignored thus far, will be key to the value proposition for payers.

METHODS

We evaluated 6,359 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing TAVR (17 hospitals, n = 1,655) or SAVR (33 hospitals, n = 4,704) in Michigan between 2012 and 2016. Payments through 90 post-discharge days between TAVR and SAVR were price-standardized and risk-adjusted. Centers were divided into terciles of procedural volume separately for TAVR and SAVR, and payments were compared between lowest and highest terciles.

RESULTS

Payments (± SD) were higher for TAVR than SAVR ($69,388 ± $22,259 versus $66,683 ± $27,377, p < 0.001), while mean hospital length of stay was shorter for TAVR (6.2 ± 5.6 versus 10.2 + 7.5 days, p < 0.001). Index hospitalization payments were $4,374 higher for TAVR (p < 0.001), whereas readmission and post-acute care payments were $1,150 (p = 0.001) and $739 (p = 0.004) lower, respectively, and professional payments were similar. For SAVR, high-volume centers had lower episode payments (difference: 5.0%, $3,255; p = 0.01) and shorter length of stay (10.0 ± 7.5 versus 11.1 ± 7.9 days, p = 0.002) than low volume centers. In contrast, we found no volume-payment relationship among TAVR centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Episode payments were higher for TAVR, despite shorter length of stay. Although not a driver for TAVR, center SAVR volume was inversely associated with payments. These data will be increasingly important to address value-based reimbursement in valve replacement surgery.