Robert B Hawkins1, Emily A Downs1, Lily E Johnston1, J Hunter Mehaffey1, Clifford E Fonner2, Ravi K Ghanta1, Alan M Speir3, Jeffrey B Rich2, Mohammed A Quader4, Leora T Yarboro1, Gorav Ailawadi5. 1. Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 2. Virginia Cardiac Services Quality Initiative, Falls Church, Virginia. 3. INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 4. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 5. Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: ga3f@virginia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a disruptive technology that is rapidly expanding in use. We evaluated the effect on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patient selection, outcomes, volume, and cost. METHODS: A total of 11,565 patients who underwent SAVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (2002 to 2015), were evaluated from the Virginia Cardiac Services Quality Initiative database. Patients were stratified by surgical era: pre-TAVR era (2002 to 2008, n = 5,113), early-TAVR era (2009 to 2011, n = 2,709), and commercial-TAVR era (2012 to 2015, n = 3,743). Patient characteristics, outcomes, and resource utilization were analyzed by univariate analyses. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, statewide SAVR volumes increased with median volumes of pre-TAVR: 722 cases/year, early-TAVR: 892 cases/year, and commercial-TAVR: 940 cases/year (p = 0.005). Implementation of TAVR was associated with declining Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality among SAVR patients (3.7%, 2.6%, and 2.4%; p < 0.0001), despite increasing rates of comorbid disease. The mortality rate was lowest in the current commercial-TAVR era (3.9%, 4.3%, and 3.2%; p = 0.05), and major morbidity decreased throughout the time period (21.2%, 20.5%, and 15.2%; p < 0.0001). The lowest observed-to-expected ratios for both occurred in the commercial-TAVR era (0.9 and 0.9, respectively). Resource utilization increased generally, including total cost increases from $42,835 to $51,923 to $54,710 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: At present, SAVR volumes have not been affected by the introduction of TAVR. The outcomes for SAVR continue to improve, potentially due to availability of transcatheter options for high-risk patients. Despite rising costs for SAVR, open approaches still provide a significant cost advantage over TAVR.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a disruptive technology that is rapidly expanding in use. We evaluated the effect on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patient selection, outcomes, volume, and cost. METHODS: A total of 11,565 patients who underwent SAVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (2002 to 2015), were evaluated from the Virginia Cardiac Services Quality Initiative database. Patients were stratified by surgical era: pre-TAVR era (2002 to 2008, n = 5,113), early-TAVR era (2009 to 2011, n = 2,709), and commercial-TAVR era (2012 to 2015, n = 3,743). Patient characteristics, outcomes, and resource utilization were analyzed by univariate analyses. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, statewide SAVR volumes increased with median volumes of pre-TAVR: 722 cases/year, early-TAVR: 892 cases/year, and commercial-TAVR: 940 cases/year (p = 0.005). Implementation of TAVR was associated with declining Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality among SAVR patients (3.7%, 2.6%, and 2.4%; p < 0.0001), despite increasing rates of comorbid disease. The mortality rate was lowest in the current commercial-TAVR era (3.9%, 4.3%, and 3.2%; p = 0.05), and major morbidity decreased throughout the time period (21.2%, 20.5%, and 15.2%; p < 0.0001). The lowest observed-to-expected ratios for both occurred in the commercial-TAVR era (0.9 and 0.9, respectively). Resource utilization increased generally, including total cost increases from $42,835 to $51,923 to $54,710 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: At present, SAVR volumes have not been affected by the introduction of TAVR. The outcomes for SAVR continue to improve, potentially due to availability of transcatheter options for high-risk patients. Despite rising costs for SAVR, open approaches still provide a significant cost advantage over TAVR.
Authors: Stephen Ramee; Saif Anwaruddin; Gautam Kumar; Robert N Piana; Vasilis Babaliaros; Tanveer Rab; Lloyd W Klein Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Himanshu J Patel; Morley A Herbert; Gaetano Paone; John C Heiser; Francis L Shannon; Patricia F Theurer; Gail F Bell; Richard L Prager Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Lars G Svensson; Murat Tuzcu; Samir Kapadia; Eugene H Blackstone; Eric E Roselli; A Marc Gillinov; Joseph F Sabik; Bruce W Lytle Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Gorav Ailawadi; Damien J LaPar; Alan M Speir; Ravi K Ghanta; Leora T Yarboro; Ivan K Crosby; D Scott Lim; Mohammed A Quader; Jeffrey B Rich Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Matthew R Reynolds; Yang Lei; Kaijun Wang; Khaja Chinnakondepalli; Katherine A Vilain; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Benjamin Z Galper; Christopher U Meduri; Suzanne V Arnold; Suzanne J Baron; Michael J Reardon; David H Adams; Jeffrey J Popma; David J Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael J Mack; Raj R Makkar; Lars G Svensson; Susheel K Kodali; Vinod H Thourani; E Murat Tuzcu; D Craig Miller; Howard C Herrmann; Darshan Doshi; David J Cohen; Augusto D Pichard; Samir Kapadia; Todd Dewey; Vasilis Babaliaros; Wilson Y Szeto; Mathew R Williams; Dean Kereiakes; Alan Zajarias; Kevin L Greason; Brian K Whisenant; Robert W Hodson; Jeffrey W Moses; Alfredo Trento; David L Brown; William F Fearon; Philippe Pibarot; Rebecca T Hahn; Wael A Jaber; William N Anderson; Maria C Alu; John G Webb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bo Yang; Elizabeth L Norton; Terry Shih; Linda Farhat; Xiaoting Wu; Whitney E Hornsby; Karen M Kim; Himanshu J Patel; G Michael Deeb Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Robert B Hawkins; J Hunter Mehaffey; Eric J Charles; John A Kern; D Scott Lim; Nicholas R Teman; Gorav Ailawadi Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Robert B Hawkins; Bree Ann C Young; J Hunter Mehaffey; Alan M Speir; Mohammed A Quader; Jeffrey B Rich; Gorav Ailawadi Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Andrew M Goldsweig; Hyo Jung Tak; Li-Wu Chen; Herbert D Aronow; Binita Shah; Dhaval S Kolte; Poonam Velagapudi; Nihar Desai; Molly Szerlip; J Dawn Abbott Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jared P Beller; Robert B Hawkins; J Hunter Mehaffey; William Z Chancellor; Clifford E Fonner; Alan M Speir; Mohammed A Quader; Jeffrey B Rich; Leora T Yarboro; Nicholas R Teman; Gorav Ailawadi Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.209
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: Tomer Ziv-Baran; Richard B Zelman; Philip Dombrowski; Amber E Schaub; Rephael Mohr; Dan Loberman Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Joel N Papak; Joseph C Chiovaro; North Noelck; Laura D Healy; Michele Freeman; Jacquelyn A Quin; Robin Paynter; Allison Low; Karli Kondo; Owen J T McCarty; Devan Kansagara Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 4.330