S Chris Malaisrie1, Eileen McDonald2, Jane Kruse2, Zhi Li2, Edwin C McGee2, Travis O Abicht2, Hyde Russell2, Patrick M McCarthy2, Adin-Cristian Andrei2. 1. Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Division of Cardiac Surgery at Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: malaisrie@northwestern.edu. 2. Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Division of Cardiac Surgery at Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with high mortality without intervention. The impact of waiting time for aortic valve replacement (AVR), either surgically or transcatheter, has not been reported. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2012, we identified 1,005 patients with severe symptomatic AS. AVR was recommended for 823 patients (82%). Of these 823 patients, 721 (87.6%) underwent AVR. We modeled overall survival (OS) since AVR recommendation or intervention date using Cox and multistate models. RESULTS: Overall, the median (first, third quartiles) waiting time until operation was 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) weeks. Mortality at these times was lower (p<0.001) in the AVR group (1.2%, 0.3%, 1.7%, respectively) than in the group that did not receive AVR (6.9%, 2.9%, 9.8%, respectively). Thirty-day mortality after AVR was 3.9% (3.2% surgical AVR [SAVR] and 7.0% transcatheter AVR [TAVR]). In patients receiving AVR, waiting time was not associated with increased mortality. Mortality while waiting for AVR was 3.7% and 11.6% at 1 and 6 months, respectively. Mortality while waiting for TAVR was higher than that for SAVR (1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality of 3.7%, 8.0%, and 9.6%, respectively, in SAVR group and 3.8%, 23.3%, and 27.5%, respectively, in TAVR group; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Some patients do not receive AVR in a timely fashion, and prolonged waiting time for AVR is associated with mortality greater than the AVR operative mortality. Although waiting time was not associated with poor operative outcomes after AVR, many patients may die while waiting for AVR. Patients should receive AVR on a semiurgent, not elective, basis.
BACKGROUND: Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with high mortality without intervention. The impact of waiting time for aortic valve replacement (AVR), either surgically or transcatheter, has not been reported. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2012, we identified 1,005 patients with severe symptomatic AS. AVR was recommended for 823 patients (82%). Of these 823 patients, 721 (87.6%) underwent AVR. We modeled overall survival (OS) since AVR recommendation or intervention date using Cox and multistate models. RESULTS: Overall, the median (first, third quartiles) waiting time until operation was 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) weeks. Mortality at these times was lower (p<0.001) in the AVR group (1.2%, 0.3%, 1.7%, respectively) than in the group that did not receive AVR (6.9%, 2.9%, 9.8%, respectively). Thirty-day mortality after AVR was 3.9% (3.2% surgical AVR [SAVR] and 7.0% transcatheter AVR [TAVR]). In patients receiving AVR, waiting time was not associated with increased mortality. Mortality while waiting for AVR was 3.7% and 11.6% at 1 and 6 months, respectively. Mortality while waiting for TAVR was higher than that for SAVR (1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality of 3.7%, 8.0%, and 9.6%, respectively, in SAVR group and 3.8%, 23.3%, and 27.5%, respectively, in TAVR group; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Some patients do not receive AVR in a timely fashion, and prolonged waiting time for AVR is associated with mortality greater than the AVR operative mortality. Although waiting time was not associated with poor operative outcomes after AVR, many patients may die while waiting for AVR. Patients should receive AVR on a semiurgent, not elective, basis.
Authors: Yeqing Zhu; Yong Wang; William E Gioia; Rowena Yip; Artit C Jirapatnakul; Michael S Chung; David F Yankelevitz; Claudia I Henschke Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Glen P Martin; Nick Curzen; Andrew T Goodwin; James Nolan; Lognathen Balacumaraswami; Peter F Ludman; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Jianhua Wu; Chris P Gale; Mark A de Belder; Mamas A Mamas Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: John K Peel; Rafael Neves Miranda; David Naimark; Graham Woodward; Mamas A Mamas; Mina Madan; Harindra C Wijeysundera Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Faisal G Bakaeen; A Marc Gillinov; Eric E Roselli; Joanna Chikwe; Marc R Moon; David H Adams; Joseph S Coselli; Joseph A Dearani; Lars G Svensson Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 6.439