Counterpoint: Access to transcatheter aortic valve replacement should not be limited to high-volume surgical centers

Rural versus urban outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The importance of the heart team

BACKGROUND

Rural patients face known healthcare disparities and worse cardiovascular outcomes compared to urban residents due to inequitable access and delayed care. Few studies have assessed rural-urban differences in outcomes following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). We compared short-term post-TAVI outcomes between rural and urban patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of n = 413 patients who underwent TAVI at our large academic medical center, between 2011 and 2020 (rural/urban patients = 93/320. Rural/urban males = 53/173). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, bleeding, vascular complications, and length of stay.

RESULTS

The mean age in years was 77 [IQR 70-82] for rural patients and 78 [IQR 72-84] for urban patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for a greater frequency of active smokers and diabetics as well as a greater body mass index in the rural group. There were no statistically significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality between the groups. There was also no statistically significant difference in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Rural and urban patients had no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality following TAVI. Given its minimally invasive nature and quality-centric, multidisciplinary care provided by the TAVI Heart Teams, TAVI may be the preferred modality for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in rural populations.

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.