Badal Thakkar1, Aashay Patel2, Bashar Mohamad3, Nileshkumar J Patel4, Parth Bhatt1, Ronak Bhimani5, Achint Patel6, Shilpkumar Arora7, Chirag Savani8, Shantanu Solanki9, Rajesh Sonani10, Samir Patel11, Nilay Patel12, Abhishek Deshmukh13, Tamam Mohamad14, Cindy Grines14, Michael Cleman15, Abeel Mangi15, John Forrest15, Apurva O Badheka16. 1. Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. 3. Fairview Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 5. St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Icahn School of Public Health at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 7. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, New York, New York. 8. New York Medical College School of Public Health, Valhalla, New York. 9. New York Medical College at Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York. 10. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 11. Western Reserve Health System, Youngstown, Ohio. 12. Saint Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 13. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 14. Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan. 15. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 16. The Everett Clinic, Everett, Washington.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the in-hospital outcomes in cirrhosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, TAVR has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Cirrhosis patients have a high risk of operative morbidity and mortality while undergoing cardiac surgery. This study's hypothesis was that TAVR is a safer alternative compared to SAVR in cirrhosis patients. METHODS: The study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011-2012 using ICD-9-CM procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients <50 years of age and those who concomitantly underwent other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: There were 30 patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in SAVR group had significantly higher rate of transfusion of whole blood or blood products (p = 0.037), longer mean postprocedural length of stay (p = 0.006), and nonsignificantly higher mean cost of hospitalization (p = 0.2), any complications rate (p = 0.09), and liver complications rate (p = 0.4). In-hospital mortality rate was same in the both the groups. No patients in the TAVR group required open-heart surgery or cardiopulmonary bypass. CONCLUSION: TAVR could be a viable option for aortic valve replacement in cirrhosis patients.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the in-hospital outcomes in cirrhosispatients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, TAVR has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Cirrhosispatients have a high risk of operative morbidity and mortality while undergoing cardiac surgery. This study's hypothesis was that TAVR is a safer alternative compared to SAVR in cirrhosispatients. METHODS: The study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011-2012 using ICD-9-CM procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients <50 years of age and those who concomitantly underwent other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: There were 30 patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in SAVR group had significantly higher rate of transfusion of whole blood or blood products (p = 0.037), longer mean postprocedural length of stay (p = 0.006), and nonsignificantly higher mean cost of hospitalization (p = 0.2), any complications rate (p = 0.09), and liver complications rate (p = 0.4). In-hospital mortality rate was same in the both the groups. No patients in the TAVR group required open-heart surgery or cardiopulmonary bypass. CONCLUSION: TAVR could be a viable option for aortic valve replacement in cirrhosispatients.
Authors: Muhammad Z Khan; Muhammad U Khan; Muhammad Bilal Munir; Safi U Khan; Mohammed Osman; Sudarshan Balla Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maria Winte; Krysta Contino; Aditi Trivedi; Nikhita Dharbhamulla; John Gaughan; Christopher Deitch; Sangita Phadtare Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2020-08-06
Authors: Jordan B Strom; Hector Tamez; Yuansong Zhao; Linda R Valsdottir; Jeptha Curtis; J Matthew Brennan; Changyu Shen; Jeffrey J Popma; Laura Mauri; Robert W Yeh Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Shilpkumar Arora; Sopan Lahewala; Varun Kumar; Ghanshyam P S Shantha; Jacob C Jentzer; John M Stulak; Bernard J Gersh; Rajiv Gulati; Charanjit S Rihal; Abhiram Prasad; Abhishek J Deshmukh Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 5.501