Rajkumar Doshi1, Jay Shah2, Vaibhav Patel1, Varun Jauhar1, Perwaiz Meraj1. 1. Department of Cardiology, North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Mercy Saint Vincent Hospital, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative for surgically inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Advanced kidney disease may significantly affect outcomes in patients treated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). HYPOTHESIS: TAVR is associated with better in-hospital outcomes compared with SAVR in patients with advanced kidney disease. METHODS: We identified our sample from the National Inpatient Sample between 2012 and 2014, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We included patients with chronic kidney disease stages IV and V and end-stage renal disease as advanced kidney disease patients. We excluded patients with acute kidney injury on admission and patients on dialysis. RESULTS: After propensity matching, 2485 patients were included in each group. The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality (12.9% vs 6.2%; P < 0.01) was higher with SAVR as compared with TAVR. Patients who underwent SAVR reported higher acute kidney injury (50.3% vs 33%; P < 0.01) and dialysis requirements (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < 0.01). Other secondary outcomes including blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, iatrogenic cardiac complications, pericardial complications, perioperative stroke, perioperative infections, and postoperative shock were more common with SAVR. With SAVR, the length of hospitalization and hospitalization costs were significantly higher; however, permanent pacemaker placement was more common with TAVR compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced kidney disease, SAVR was associated with higher mortality and higher periprocedural complications, as compared with TAVR. Thus, benefits of TAVR could be extended in patients with advanced kidney disease who cannot undergo surgery.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative for surgically inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Advanced kidney disease may significantly affect outcomes in patients treated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). HYPOTHESIS: TAVR is associated with better in-hospital outcomes compared with SAVR in patients with advanced kidney disease. METHODS: We identified our sample from the National Inpatient Sample between 2012 and 2014, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We included patients with chronic kidney disease stages IV and V and end-stage renal disease as advanced kidney diseasepatients. We excluded patients with acute kidney injury on admission and patients on dialysis. RESULTS: After propensity matching, 2485 patients were included in each group. The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality (12.9% vs 6.2%; P < 0.01) was higher with SAVR as compared with TAVR. Patients who underwent SAVR reported higher acute kidney injury (50.3% vs 33%; P < 0.01) and dialysis requirements (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < 0.01). Other secondary outcomes including blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, iatrogenic cardiac complications, pericardial complications, perioperative stroke, perioperative infections, and postoperative shock were more common with SAVR. With SAVR, the length of hospitalization and hospitalization costs were significantly higher; however, permanent pacemaker placement was more common with TAVR compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced kidney disease, SAVR was associated with higher mortality and higher periprocedural complications, as compared with TAVR. Thus, benefits of TAVR could be extended in patients with advanced kidney disease who cannot undergo surgery.
Authors: Francesco Saia; Cristina Ciuca; Nevio Taglieri; Cinzia Marrozzini; Carlo Savini; Barbara Bordoni; Gianni Dall'Ara; Carolina Moretti; Emanuele Pilato; Sofia Martìn-Suàrez; Francesco Dimitri Petridis; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Angelo Branzi; Antonio Marzocchi Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Bernard Iung; Gabriel Baron; Eric G Butchart; François Delahaye; Christa Gohlke-Bärwolf; Olaf W Levang; Pilar Tornos; Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde; Frank Vermeer; Eric Boersma; Philippe Ravaud; Alec Vahanian Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Stephan Fichtlscherer; Thomas Walther; Silvia Mas-Peiro; Gloria Faerber; Dimitra Bon; Eva Herrmann; Timm Bauer; Sabine Bleiziffer; Raffi Bekeredjian; Andreas Böning; Christian Frerker; Andreas Beckmann; Helge Möllmann; Stephan Ensminger; Christian W Hamm; Friedhelm Beyersdorf Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Benjamin R Griffin; Patrick D Kohtz; Michael Bronsert; T Brett Reece; Joseph C Cleveland; David A Fullerton; Sarah Faubel; Muhammad Aftab Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.192