Rajkumar Doshi1, Priyank Shah2, Perwaiz M Meraj1. 1. Department of Cardiology, North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York. 2. Department of Cardiology, Medical College of Georgia-Southwest Clinical Campus, Albany, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The preferred access for TAVR is transfemoral (TF). Alternatives include the transapical (TA), trans-subclavian (TS), and direct aortic (TAo) approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The TF approach is associated with lower in-hospital outcomes as well as shorter length of stay and lower cost of hospitalization. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 through 2014 was used to obtain the TAVR study population. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were utilized to identify the 2 groups. In-hospital outcomes were compared in propensity-score-matched (1:3) cohorts, in which we took TA-TAVR as a control. RESULTS: A total of 8210 (weighted N = 41 050) patients were identified. Of these, 1622 (weighted N = 8110) patients underwent TA-TAVR and 6588 (weighted N = 32 940) patients underwent TF-TAVR. In-hospital mortality was lower with TF-TAVR (4% vs 5.4%; P = 0.0355), along with a shorter length of stay (7.7 vs 9.7 days; P < 0.0001) and lower median hospitalization cost ($64 216 vs $74 735; P < 0.0001). Secondary outcomes of acute renal failure, transfusion, cardiogenic shock, and composite of all complications were lower with TF-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: TF-TAVR is safer and associated with lower in-hospital outcomes compared with TA-TAVR and should be the preferred approach. As TAVR is gaining popularity in intermediate- and low-risk patients, we must not lose sight of the serious mortality and secondary outcomes associated with TA-TAVR access.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The preferred access for TAVR is transfemoral (TF). Alternatives include the transapical (TA), trans-subclavian (TS), and direct aortic (TAo) approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The TF approach is associated with lower in-hospital outcomes as well as shorter length of stay and lower cost of hospitalization. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 through 2014 was used to obtain the TAVR study population. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were utilized to identify the 2 groups. In-hospital outcomes were compared in propensity-score-matched (1:3) cohorts, in which we took TA-TAVR as a control. RESULTS: A total of 8210 (weighted N = 41 050) patients were identified. Of these, 1622 (weighted N = 8110) patients underwent TA-TAVR and 6588 (weighted N = 32 940) patients underwent TF-TAVR. In-hospital mortality was lower with TF-TAVR (4% vs 5.4%; P = 0.0355), along with a shorter length of stay (7.7 vs 9.7 days; P < 0.0001) and lower median hospitalization cost ($64 216 vs $74 735; P < 0.0001). Secondary outcomes of acute renal failure, transfusion, cardiogenic shock, and composite of all complications were lower with TF-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: TF-TAVR is safer and associated with lower in-hospital outcomes compared with TA-TAVR and should be the preferred approach. As TAVR is gaining popularity in intermediate- and low-risk patients, we must not lose sight of the serious mortality and secondary outcomes associated with TA-TAVR access.
Authors: Josep Rodés-Cabau; Eric Dumont; Robert H Boone; Eric Larose; Rodrigo Bagur; Ronen Gurvitch; Fernand Bédard; Daniel Doyle; Robert De Larochellière; Cleonie Jayasuria; Jacques Villeneuve; Alier Marrero; Mélanie Côté; Philippe Pibarot; John G Webb Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mitul B Kadakia; Howard C Herrmann; Nimesh D Desai; Zachary Fox; Jeffrey Ogbara; Saif Anwaruddin; Dinesh Jagasia; Joseph E Bavaria; Wilson Y Szeto; Prashanth Vallabhajosyula; Robert Li; Rohan Menon; Dale M Kobrin; Jay Giri Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Ganesh Athappan; R Dilip Gajulapalli; Prasanna Sengodan; Anju Bhardwaj; Stephen G Ellis; Lars Svensson; Emin Murat Tuzcu; Samir R Kapadia Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marco Barbanti; Sergio Buccheri; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Simona Gulino; Philippe Généreux; Gerlando Pilato; Danny Dvir; Andrea Picci; Giuliano Costa; Corrado Tamburino; Martin B Leon; John G Webb Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Pompilio Faggiano; Silvia Frattini; Valentina Zilioli; Andrea Rossi; Stefano Nistri; Frank L Dini; Roberto Lorusso; Cesare Tomasi; Livio Dei Cas Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Gerhard Schymik; Alexander Würth; Peter Bramlage; Tanja Herbinger; Martin Heimeshoff; Lothar Pilz; Jan S Schymik; Rainer Wondraschek; Tim Süselbeck; Jan Gerhardus; Armin Luik; Bernd-Dieter Gonska; Herbert Posival; Claus Schmitt; Holger Schröfel Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Aleksandra Stańska; Dariusz Jagielak; Maciej Kowalik; Maciej Brzeziński; Rafał Pawlaczyk; Jadwiga Fijałkowska; Wojciech Karolak; Jan Rogowski; Peter Bramlage Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Yasar Sattar; David Song; Talal Almas; Mohamed Zghouzi; Usama Talib; Abdul-Rahman M Suleiman; Bachar Ahmad; Junaid Arshad; Waqas Ullah; Muhammad Zia Khan; Christopher M Bianco; Rodrigo Bagur; Muhammad Rashid; Mamas A Mamas; M Chadi Alraies Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2022-09-15