Ahmad Alkhalil1, Shervin Golbari1, David Song1, Harveen Lamba2, Anas Fares2, Amer Alaiti2, Salil Deo2, Guilherme F Attizzani2, Homam Ibrahim3, Carlos E Ruiz4. 1. Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, Rutgers University School of Medicine, Newark, New Jersey. 2. Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are at intermediate and high risk for surgery. Commercial use of TAVR has expanded to patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). OBJECTIVES: Compare in-hospital outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in ESRD patients requiring hemodialysis (HD). METHODS: ESRD patients on HD undergoing TAVR (n = 328) or SAVR (n = 697) between 2012 and 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Propensity-score matching method was used to minimize selection bias. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared. RESULTS: TAVR patients were older (75.3 vs. 61.6 years, P < 0.001) and had more comorbidities, including congestive heart failure (16.2% vs. 7.5%), diabetes mellitus (28.4% vs. 22.5%), chronic lung disease (27.7% vs. 20.4%), and peripheral vascular disease (35.1% vs. 21.2%). Propensity-score matching yielded 175 pairs of patients matched on 30 baseline covariates. Overall in-hospital mortality was high (9.9%) and similar between TAVR and SAVR (8% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.58). TAVR was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (8 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001), lower hospitalization cost ($276,448 vs. $364,280, P = 0.01), lower in-hospital complications (60.6% vs. 76%, P = 0.003), and higher rate of home discharge (31.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.004) compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of treatment modality, patients with AS on HD have high in-hospital mortality. TAVR and SAVR have comparable in-hospital mortality in this population. However, TAVR is associated with shorter LOS, lower hospitalization costs, lower in-hospital complications, and higher rates of home discharge.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are at intermediate and high risk for surgery. Commercial use of TAVR has expanded to patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). OBJECTIVES: Compare in-hospital outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in ESRDpatients requiring hemodialysis (HD). METHODS:ESRDpatients on HD undergoing TAVR (n = 328) or SAVR (n = 697) between 2012 and 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Propensity-score matching method was used to minimize selection bias. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared. RESULTS: TAVR patients were older (75.3 vs. 61.6 years, P < 0.001) and had more comorbidities, including congestive heart failure (16.2% vs. 7.5%), diabetes mellitus (28.4% vs. 22.5%), chronic lung disease (27.7% vs. 20.4%), and peripheral vascular disease (35.1% vs. 21.2%). Propensity-score matching yielded 175 pairs of patients matched on 30 baseline covariates. Overall in-hospital mortality was high (9.9%) and similar between TAVR and SAVR (8% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.58). TAVR was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (8 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001), lower hospitalization cost ($276,448 vs. $364,280, P = 0.01), lower in-hospital complications (60.6% vs. 76%, P = 0.003), and higher rate of home discharge (31.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.004) compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of treatment modality, patients with AS on HD have high in-hospital mortality. TAVR and SAVR have comparable in-hospital mortality in this population. However, TAVR is associated with shorter LOS, lower hospitalization costs, lower in-hospital complications, and higher rates of home discharge.
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: Erica S Ghezzi; Tyler J Ross; Daniel Davis; Peter J Psaltis; Tobias Loetscher; Hannah A D Keage Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 2.778