Utilization and 1-Year Mortality for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in New York Patients With Aortic Stenosis: 2011 to 2012

Identifying opportunities to advance health equity in interventional cardiology: Structural heart disease

Health care practices are influenced by variety of factors. These factors that include social determinants, race and ethnicity, and gender not only affect access to health care but can also affect quality of care and patient outcomes. These are a source of health care disparities. This article acknowledges that these disparities exist in getting optimal care in structural heart disease, reviews the literature and proposes steps that can help reduce these disparities on personal and committee levels.

Cardiovascular procedural deferral and outcomes over COVID-19 pandemic phases: A multi-center study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations.

METHODS

Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across 6 Western states in 2 large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in 2 distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15-April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (P = .0003), older (P < .0001), Asian or Black (P = .02), or Medicare insured (P < .0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (P < .0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend toward more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (P = .05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions.

The International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Expert Consensus Statement on Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons.

METHODS

Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I² = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I² = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient's aortic valve disease.

Trends of utilization and outcomes after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement on chronic dialysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Trends of utilization and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients on chronic dialysis (CD) are not well described. We aimed to assess the trends in utilization and outcomes of TAVR and SAVR on CD.

METHODS

Nationwide Readmission Databases from 2013 to 2017 was analyzed. International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification 9 and 10 codes were used to identify diagnoses and procedures. A multivariable regression model was used to compare the outcomes expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 5731 TAVR and 6491 SAVR were performed in patients with CD, respectively. The volume of TAVR increased by approximately four-folds and SAVR increased by approximately 33%. However, amongst patients with CD, the percentage of TAVR increased, whereas that of SAVR decreased (p < .001 for all). In 2016 and 2017, TAVR volume surpassed that of SAVR on CD. In-hospital mortality remained similar in TAVR (aOR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.79-1.07; p-trend = .23) whereas it increased significantly in SAVR (aOR: 1.14: 95% CI: 1.05-1.25, p-trend = .002). In 2017, in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission were significantly higher in TAVR among CD than non-CD patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased use of TAVR among CD, there still is an opportunity for improvement in outcome of aortic valve replacement for those on CD.

Utilization of Advanced Cardiovascular Therapies in the United States and Canada: An Observational Study of New York and Ontario Administrative Data

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovascular technologies with potential to benefit large numbers of patients. There are few population-based studies comparing utilization between countries. Our objective was to compare patient characteristics and utilization patterns of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, United States.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using administrative data to identify all adults who received EVAR, LVAD, or TAVR in Ontario and New York between 2012 and 2015. We compared socio-demographics of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR recipients in Ontario and New York. We compared standardized utilization rates between jurisdictions for each procedure. We identified 3295 EVAR recipients from Ontario and 6236 from New York (mean age 74.6 versus 74.5 years; P=0.61): 136 LVAD recipients from Ontario and 686 from New York (age, 57.4 versus 57.7 years; P=0.80): 1708 TAVR recipients from Ontario and 4838 from New York (age, 83.1 versus 83.1; P=1.0). A significantly smaller percentage of EVAR and TAVR recipients in Ontario were female compared to New York (EVAR, 15.8% versus 22.1% female; P<0.001; TAVR, 45.9% versus 51.8%; P<0.001), but for LVAD the percentage female was similar (21.3% versus 20.8%; P=0.99). Utilization was significantly higher in New York for all procedures: EVAR (12.8 procedures per-100 000 adults per-year in Ontario, 20.2 in New York; P<0.001); LVAD (0.3 in Ontario versus 1.3 in New York; P<0.001); and TAVR (6.6 in Ontario, 14.3 in New York; P<0.001). Higher utilization of EVAR and TAVR in New York relative to Ontario increased substantially with increasing age.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significantly higher utilization of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in New York compared to Ontario. Our results highlight important differences in how 2 different countries are using advanced cardiovascular therapies.

Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with other approaches to treat aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) is an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or at increased perioperative risk. Due to continually emerging evidence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing benefits and harms of TAVI, SAVR, medical therapy, and balloon aortic valvuloplasty.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 6, 2017. We dually screened abstracts and full-text articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched observational studies. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). If data permitted, we performed meta-analyses using random- and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Out of 7755 citations, we included six RCTs (5862 patients) and 13 observational studies (6376 patients). In meta-analyses, patients treated with SAVR or TAVI had similar risks for mortality at 30 days (relative risk [RR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.33) and 1 year (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). TAVI had significantly lower risks for major bleeding but increased risks for major vascular complications, moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, and new pacemaker implantation compared to SAVR. Comparing TAVI to medical therapy, mortality did not differ at 30 days but was significantly reduced at 1 year (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Given similar mortality risks but different patterns of adverse events, the choice between TAVI and SAVR remains an individual one.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Background

Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Methods

Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

Implementation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in California: Influence on aortic valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures were introduced in 2011. Initially, procedures were limited to patients who were not surgical candidates, but subsequently high-risk surgical candidates were considered for TAVR. The influence on aortic valve surgery in California is unknown.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development hospitalized patient discharge database was queried for the years 2009 through 2014. isolated surgical aortic valve and aortic valve/coronary artery bypass graft (SAVR) and TAVR procedures were identified by International Classification of Diseases-9th revision clinical modification procedure codes. Seven TAVR programs were introduced in 2011, 12 in 2012, 3 in 2013, and 6 in 2014. SAVR procedure volumes were compared from the 2 years before institution with SAVR volumes during the year(s) after institution of the TAVR program in these 28 hospitals.

RESULTS

Overall, surgical volumes increased during the first, second, and third years after implementation of TAVR procedures. Among 7 hospitals with 4-year programs, surgical volumes increased to a maximum of 15.5% during the third year, then began to decrease. The hospital performing the largest number of TAVR procedures showed a marked decrease in SAVR volume by the fourth year, suggesting a shift of SAVR candidates to TAVR. Among all hospitals with 4-year programs, TAVR exceeded SAVR procedures by the fourth year. In California overall, SAVR increased during 2011 through 2013, due primarily to increasing volume of isolated SAVR procedures. Statewide, isolated SAVR increased from a yearly average of 3111 procedures during 2009-2010 to 3592 (+15.5%) in 2013, then decreased slightly in 2014. SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft procedures decreased during the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS

After implementation of TAVR, hospital SAVR volumes increased moderately, then began to decrease by the fourth year, when TAVR volume exceeded SAVR. Surgical candidates may be identified during evaluation for TAVR, resulting in increased SAVR volume. Increasing SAVR volume may also be related to improved patient and provider awareness of aortic valve disease.

Incidence, indications and predicting factors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

As the number of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures is constantly increasing, it is important to consider common complications, such as pacemaker (PM) implantation, and their specific risk factors.

AIMS

Echocardiographic, computed tomography and electrocardiographic data were analysed to determine the predicting factors, if any, associated with PM implantation.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients referred to Nancy University Hospital for a TAVI procedure from January 2013 to December 2015. Both Medtronic CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN valves were implanted. Patients with preprocedurally implanted PMs and/or referred from another institution were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 208 TAVI patients, 23 had a pre-existing PM and were excluded. A new PM was required in 38 patients (20.5%). Pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB), the use of the Medtronic CoreValve and large prostheses were identified as predictors of PM implantation (P=0.0361, P=0.0004 and P=0.0019, respectively). Using logistic regression, predictors of PM implantation included first-degree atrioventricular block (odds ratio 3.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5-9.1; P=0.0054) and large aortic annulus diameter in echocardiography (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1-1.4; P=0.0447), with a threshold of 24.1mm. For the combination of preTAVI PR duration >220ms and QRS duration >120ms, the positive predictive value for PM implantation reached 80%.

CONCLUSION

Use of the Medtronic CoreValve, RBBB and first-degree atrioventricular block are major risk factors for post-TAVI PM implantation. In addition, large aortic annulus and large valvular prosthesis are independent risk factors for PM implantation. The combination of preTAVI prolonged PR interval and increased QRS duration could be used as a marker for periprocedural PM implantation.

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

Objectives

This purpose of the study was to evaluate TAVR outcomes at low, intermediate and high volume institutions.

Background

For the care of complex patients, volume-outcome effect is well described. The initial US TAVR experience was limited to a few centers of excellence. The impact of institutional volume on outcomes after TAVR has not been systematically studied.

Methods

Within the Banner Health system, TAVR is performed at 3 institutions-a low volume, an intermediate volume and a high volume institution. 181 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR within these 3 institutions were the study cohort. To adjust for bias and confounders between the 3 groups, risk-adjusted multivariate logistic regression and propensity score analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality, dialysis-dependent renal failure, cerebrovascular accident, need for new permanent pacemaker and readmission within 30 days.

Results

The primary endpoint was reached in 38.8% of patients at the high volume institution and 76.2% of patients at the low volume institution (p < 0.01). Having a TAVR procedure at a larger volume institution was an independent predictor of having improved outcomes (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.68; p = 0.003). These improved outcomes after the TAVR procedure noted at the large volume institution were seen in the most complex patients: age ≥80 years, BMI >30, diabetes, hypertension, prior CAD, CKD and NYHA class III/IV heart failure.

Conclusions

High-risk patients undergoing TAVR at a large volume institution have better 30-day outcomes compared to outcomes at intermediate and low volume centers.

Improved costs and outcomes with conscious sedation vs general anesthesia in TAVR patients: Time to wake up?

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a commonplace procedure for the treatment of aortic stenosis in higher risk surgical patients. With the high cost and steadily increasing number of patients receiving TAVR, emphasis has been placed on optimizing outcomes as well as resource utilization. Recently, studies have demonstrated the feasibility of conscious sedation in lieu of general anesthesia for TAVR. This study aimed to investigate the clinical as well as cost outcomes associated with conscious sedation in comparison to general anesthesia in TAVR.

Methods

Records for all adult patients undergoing TAVR at our institution between August 2012 and June 2016 were included using our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) registries. Cost data was gathered using the BIOME database. Patients were stratified into two groups according to whether they received general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation (CS) during the procedure. No-replacement propensity score matching was done using the validated STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM) as a propensity score. Primary outcome measure with survival to discharge and several secondary outcome measures were also included in analysis. According to our institution's data reporting guidelines, all cost data is presented as a percentage of the general anesthesia control group cost.

Results

Of the 231 patients initially identified, 225 (157 GA, 68 CS) were included for analysis. After no-replacement propensity score matching, 196 patients (147 GA, 49 CS) remained. Overall mortality was 1.5% in the matched population with a trend towards lower mortality in the CS group. Conscious sedation was associated with significantly fewer ICU hours (30 vs 96 hours, p = <0.001) and total hospital days (4.9 vs 10.4, p<0.001). Additionally, there was a 28% decrease in direct cost (p<0.001) as well as significant decreases in all individual all cost categories associated with the use of conscious sedation. There was no difference in composite major adverse events between groups. These trends remained on all subsequent subgroup analyses.

Conclusion

Conscious sedation is emerging as a safe and viable option for anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The use of conscious sedation was not only associated with similar rates of adverse events, but also shortened ICU and overall hospital stays. Finally, there were significant decreases in all cost categories when compared to a propensity matched cohort receiving general anesthesia.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The year in review 2016

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continued to make major strides in 2016, simultaneously expanding its application to lower risk patients as well as more technically challenging subsets of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The two major accomplishments this year were the establishment of TAVR as the preferred treatment strategy over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate risk patients, and initial signals that TAVR and SAVR may be clinically equivalent in low-risk populations. Meanwhile, there is continued expansion of TAVR to challenging clinical subsets (bicuspid aortic valve [BAV], patients with concomitant advanced coronary artery disease [CAD], and failed surgical bioprostheses), and encouraging initial experiences with newer transcatheter heart valve systems. This paper summarizes the major research studies published on TAVR in 2016.

Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of perioperative mortality after sutureless or rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

To determine which procedure, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis (SL-AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), achieves better perioperative survival for severe aortic stenosis (AS), we conducted direct-comparison meta-analyses (DC-MAs) and an adjusted indirect-comparison meta-analysis (IDC-MA).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2016. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. We performed a DC-MA-[A] of SL-AVR versus TAVI, a DC-MA-[B] of SL-AVR versus conventional AVR (C-AVR), and a DC-MA-[C] TAVI versus C-AVR. Then, we computed a IDC-MA-[A'] of TAVI versus SL-AVR from the results of the DC-MA-[B] and the DC-MA-[C].

RESULTS

We identified 6 RCTs and 30 PSM studies enrolling a total of 15,887 patients. The 3 DC-MAs demonstrated significantly lower perioperative (30-day or in-hospital) all-cause mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.80; p=0.005) and no significant differences between SL-AVR and C-AVR (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.94; p=0.81) and between TAVI and C-AVR (1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.27; p=0.45). The computed IDC-MA-[A'] indicated no significant difference in mortality between SL-AVR and TAVI (1.01; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.86). Combining the results of the DC-MA-[A] and IDC-MA [A'] showed significantly lower mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe AS, SL-AVR may achieve better perioperative survival than TAVI.

Periprocedural considerations of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for anesthesiologists

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is rapidly gaining popularity as a viable option in the management of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and high risk for open surgical intervention. TAVR soon expanding its indications from "high-risk" group of patients to those with "intermediate-risk". As an anesthesiologist; understanding the procedure and the challenges inherent to it is of utmost importance, in order to implement optimal care for this generally frail population undergoing a rather novel procedure. Cardiac anesthesiologists generally play a pivotal role in the perioperative care of the patients, and therefore they should be fully familiar with the circumstances occurring surrounding the procedure. Along with increasing experience and technical developments for TAVR, the procedure time becomes shorter. Due to this improvement in the procedure time, more and more anesthesiologists feel comfortable in using monitored anesthesia care with moderate sedation for patients undergoing TAVR. A number of complications could arise during the procedure needing rapid diagnoses and occasionally conversion to general anesthesia. This review focuses on the periprocedural anesthetic considerations for TAVR.