J Matthew Brennan1, David R Holmes2, Matthew W Sherwood3, Fred H Edwards4, John D Carroll5, Fred L Grover5, E Murat Tuzcu6, Vinod Thourani7, Ralph G Brindis8, David M Shahian9, Lars G Svensson6, Sean M O'Brien3, Cynthia M Shewan10, Kathleen Hewitt11, James S Gammie12, John S Rumsfeld5, Eric D Peterson3, Michael J Mack13. 1. Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: j.matthew.brennan@dm.duke.edu. 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 4. University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida. 5. Denver VA Medical Center, Denver, Colorado. 6. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 8. University of California, San Francisco, California. 9. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois. 11. American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC. 12. University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. 13. Heart Hospital Baylor Plano, Baylor Healthcare System, Plano, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has affected hospitals' surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and overall aortic valve replacement (AVR) case volumes and outcomes in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We utilized data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) adult cardiac surgery database and the STS/American College of Cardiology (ACC) transcatheter valve therapies registry to examine SAVR and TAVR procedures. Temporal trends in total case volume (SAVR plus TAVR), and observed and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates were assessed among low-risk cases (STS predicted risk of operative mortality < 4%), intermediate-risk cases (4% to 8%), and high-risk cases (> 8%). A contemporary control was provided by non-TAVR centers. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2013, the total annual volume of AVR among 246 TAVR-performing hospitals increased from 19,578 to 33,004, with a 22% growth in SAVR volumes; non-TAVR hospital (n = 555) increases were more modest (16,563 to 19,134; 16% growth). Expanded volumes at TAVR hospitals included increased SAVR use in low- and intermediate-risk cases, and TAVR use in high-risk cases. In parallel, in-hospital mortality for all AVR procedures at TAVR sites declined from 3.4% to 2.9% (observed to expected [O:E] ratio 0.75 to 0.58, p < 0.001); the greatest declines were among intermediate- and high-risk SAVR patients. Owing to reduced SAVR mortality, TAVR centers experienced a significantly greater decline in O:E ratio for high-risk patient in-hospital mortality than non-TAVR centers (TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.81 to 0.61; non-TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.85 to 0.76; p < 0.001). After approval of TAVR for clinical use, a trend toward higher in-hospital mortality rates and O:E ratios for TAVR procedures was observed at new (but not at established) TAVR centers (O:E ratio, 0.41 to 0.67; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Since the introduction of TAVR, the total volume of AVR procedures, including higher overall use of SAVR, at TAVR sites has significantly increased in the United States. Overall, in-hospital survival of patients undergoing treatment for aortic valve stenosis continues to improve.
BACKGROUND: Whether the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has affected hospitals' surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and overall aortic valve replacement (AVR) case volumes and outcomes in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We utilized data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) adult cardiac surgery database and the STS/American College of Cardiology (ACC) transcatheter valve therapies registry to examine SAVR and TAVR procedures. Temporal trends in total case volume (SAVR plus TAVR), and observed and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates were assessed among low-risk cases (STS predicted risk of operative mortality < 4%), intermediate-risk cases (4% to 8%), and high-risk cases (> 8%). A contemporary control was provided by non-TAVR centers. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2013, the total annual volume of AVR among 246 TAVR-performing hospitals increased from 19,578 to 33,004, with a 22% growth in SAVR volumes; non-TAVR hospital (n = 555) increases were more modest (16,563 to 19,134; 16% growth). Expanded volumes at TAVR hospitals included increased SAVR use in low- and intermediate-risk cases, and TAVR use in high-risk cases. In parallel, in-hospital mortality for all AVR procedures at TAVR sites declined from 3.4% to 2.9% (observed to expected [O:E] ratio 0.75 to 0.58, p < 0.001); the greatest declines were among intermediate- and high-risk SAVR patients. Owing to reduced SAVR mortality, TAVR centers experienced a significantly greater decline in O:E ratio for high-risk patient in-hospital mortality than non-TAVR centers (TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.81 to 0.61; non-TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.85 to 0.76; p < 0.001). After approval of TAVR for clinical use, a trend toward higher in-hospital mortality rates and O:E ratios for TAVR procedures was observed at new (but not at established) TAVR centers (O:E ratio, 0.41 to 0.67; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Since the introduction of TAVR, the total volume of AVR procedures, including higher overall use of SAVR, at TAVR sites has significantly increased in the United States. Overall, in-hospital survival of patients undergoing treatment for aortic valve stenosis continues to improve.
Authors: Fenton H McCarthy; Danielle C Savino; Chase R Brown; Joseph E Bavaria; Vinay Kini; Danielle D Spragan; Taylor R Dibble; Howard C Herrmann; Saif Anwaruddin; Jay Giri; Wilson Y Szeto; Peter W Groeneveld; Nimesh D Desai Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Robert B Hawkins; Emily A Downs; Lily E Johnston; J Hunter Mehaffey; Clifford E Fonner; Ravi K Ghanta; Alan M Speir; Jeffrey B Rich; Mohammed A Quader; Leora T Yarboro; Gorav Ailawadi Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Miho Fukui; Aman Gupta; Islam Abdelkarim; Michael S Sharbaugh; Andrew D Althouse; Hesham Elzomor; Suresh Mulukutla; Joon S Lee; John T Schindler; Thomas G Gleason; João L Cavalcante Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Brian R Englum; Asvin M Ganapathi; Matthew A Schechter; J Kevin Harrison; Donald D Glower; G Chad Hughes Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Abdulla A Damluji; Michael Fabbro; Richard H Epstein; Stefan Rayer; Ying Wang; Mauro Moscucci; Mauricio G Cohen; John D Carroll; John C Messenger; Jon R Resar; David J Cohen; Matthew W Sherwood; Christopher M O'Connor; Wayne Batchelor Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-08-19
Authors: Oliver K Jawitz; Brian C Gulack; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Roland A Matsouaka; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; John D Carroll; Vinod H Thourani; J Matthew Brennan Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Sameer A Hirji; Ellen McCarthy; Dae Kim; Siobhan McGurk; Julius Ejiofor; Fernando Ramirez-Del Val; Ahmed A Kolkailah; Bernard Rosner; Douglas Shook; Charles Nyman; Natalia Berry; Piotr Sobieszczyk; Marc Pelletier; Pinak Shah; Patrick O'Gara; Tsuyoshi Kaneko Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Ana López-de-Andrés; Napoleon Perez-Farinos; Javier de Miguel-Díez; Valentín Hernández-Barrera; Manuel Méndez-Bailón; José M de Miguel-Yanes; Rodrigo Jiménez-García Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Caroline A Kim; Sebastian Placide; Lewis A Lipsitz; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 25.391