Same-Day Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insights from the Nationwide Readmission Database 2015 to 2019

Impact of gender on in-hospital and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an analysis of the Spanish TAVI registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Impact of gender on long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain. We aimed to investigate gender-specific differences in TAVI and its impact on outcomes.

METHODS

This analysis used data from the prospective Spanish TAVI registry, which included consecutive TAVI patients treated in 46 Spanish centers from 2009 to 2021. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital and 30-day mortality and TAVI-related complications. Adjusted logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The study included 12 253 consecutive TAVI patients with a mean age of 81.2±6.4 years. Women (53.9%) were older, and had a higher STS-PROM score (7.0±7.0 vs 6.2±6.7; P < .001) than men. Overall, the TAVI-related complication rate was similar between women and men, with specific gender-related complications. While women more frequently developed in-hospital vascular complications (13.6% vs 9.8%; P <.001) and cardiac tamponade (1.5% vs 0.6%; P=.009), men showed a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (14.5% vs 17.4%; P=.009). There was no difference in all-cause mortality either in hospital (3.6% vs 3.6%, adjusted OR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.83-1.23; P=.902), at 30 days (4.2% vs 4.2%, adjusted OR, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.65-1.25; P=.564) or at 1 year (11% vs 13%, adjusted HR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.80-1.11; P=.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Women treated with TAVI are older and have more comorbidities than men, leading to distinct complications between genders. Nevertheless, all-cause mortality in the short-term and at 1-year was similar between men and women.

Temporal Trends, Outcomes, and Predictors of Next-Day Discharge and Readmission Following Uncomplicated Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Next-day discharge (NDD) outcomes following uncomplicated self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement have not been studied. Here, we compare readmission rates and clinical outcomes in NDD versus non-NDD transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry patients (n=29 597) undergoing elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expanding supra-annular valves (Evolut R, PRO, and PRO+) from July 2019 to June 2021 were stratified by postprocedure length of stay: ≤1 day (NDD) versus >1 day (non-NDD). Propensity score matching was used to compare risk adjusted 30-day readmission rates and 1-year outcomes in NDD versus non-NDD, and multivariable regression to determine predictors of NDD and readmission. Between the first and last calendar quarter, the rate of NDD increased from 45.4% to 62.1% and median length of stay decreased from 2 days to 1. Propensity score matching produced relatively well-matched NDD and non-NDD cohorts (n=10 549 each). After matching, NDD was associated with lower 30-day readmission rates (6.3% versus 8.4%; P<0.001) and 1-year adverse outcomes (death, 7.0% versus 9.3%; life threatening/major bleeding, 1.6% versus 3.4%; new permanent pacemaker implantation/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 3.6 versus 11.0%; [all P<0.001]). Predictors of NDD included non-Hispanic ethnicity, preexisting permanent pacemaker implantation/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and previous surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients undergoing uncomplicated self-expanding Evolut transcatheter aortic valve replacement are discharged the next day. This study found that NDD can be predicted from baseline patient characteristics and was associated with favorable 30-day and 1-year outcomes, including low rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and readmission.

Reducing length of stay after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the FAST-TAVI II trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The length of stay (LOS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains extremely variable whereas early discharge has been shown to be feasible and safe. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intervention aimed at reducing LOS after transfemoral TAVI.

METHODS

FAST-TAVI II is a prospective, multicentre, cluster, randomized, controlled study including patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, who had transfemoral TAVI. The intervention consisted in a dedicated training programme to implement 10 quality of care measures to reduce LOS with an implementation phase of eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients discharged early within 3 days. Secondary endpoints included: LOS, 30-day mortality and 30-day incidence of readmission for cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

During the study period, 969 patients were enrolled in the intervention group and 860 patients in the control group. Mean age was 81.9 ± 6.6 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 4.4 ± 4.5%. Early discharge was achieved in 563 (58.1%) patients in the intervention group vs. 364 (42.3%) patients in the control group (P < .0001). Median LOS was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group [3 (IQR: 3) vs. 4 days (IQR: 3), P < .0001]. Thirty-day mortality was low and similar in the two groups (0.5% vs. 0.9%, P = .30), as were 30-day readmissions (4.6% vs. 2.8%, P = .28).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was simple and fast to implement, and was effective and safe to reduce LOS and increase the proportion of patients discharged early after TAVI (NCT04503655).

Virtual reality-assisted distraction during transcatheter aortic valve implantation under local anaesthesia: A randomised study

BACKGROUND

A minimal approach, using local anaesthesia alone, has been advocated to promote faster transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures in intermediate-risk patients. Pre- and periprocedural anxiety and pain remain a concern. Virtual reality (VR) is a form of non-pharmacological distraction that can potentially modulate pain and anxiety. This randomised study explored whether VR reduces pain and anxiety during TAVR without sedation and compared the effects of VR with those of standard care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between June 2022 and March 2023, 207 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR). Of these, 117 (56.5%) patients were willing to participate in the study and met the educational background and mental status criteria for assessment. Fifty-nine patients underwent TF-TAVR with VR glasses (VR group). Fifty-eight patients underwent standard TF-TAVR without VR (control group; CG). Post-interventional anxiety scores (STAI-S) (31.5 ± 13.4 vs. 38.5 ± 19.2, p = 0.02) and the perceived duration of the procedure (60.1 ± 32.3 vs. 73.0 ± 32.4, p = 0.04) were lower in the VR than in the CG. Procedure time, pain, and anxiety scores (visual analogue scale) were similar between the groups. The complication rate was low and not associated with VR. Post-interventional delirium occurred in nine patients, and was similar between the groups (VR: 4 [6.8%] vs. CG: 5 [8.6%], p = 0.71). No periprocedural strokes were observed.

CONCLUSION

VR for TAVR is feasible and safe and expands the non-drug spectrum of therapy for anxiety and pain in patients undergoing TAVR with a minimalistic approach.

Evolving Devices and Material in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: What to Use and for Whom

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.