Dhaval Kolte1, Sahil Khera2, Sreekanth Vemulapalli3, Dadi Dai3, Stephan Heo1, Andrew M Goldsweig4, Herbert D Aronow1, Sammy Elmariah2, Ignacio Inglessis2, Igor F Palacios2, Vinod H Thourani5, Barry L Sharaf1, Paul C Gordon1, J Dawn Abbott6. 1. Division of Cardiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 5. Department of Cardiac Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. 6. Division of Cardiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Electronic address: JAbbott@Lifespan.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to examine outcomes and identify independent predictors of mortality among patients undergoing urgent/emergent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Data on urgent/emergent TAVR as a rescue therapy for decompensated severe aortic stenosis (AS) are limited. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry linked with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims was used to identify patients who underwent urgent/emergent versus elective TAVR between November 2011 and June 2016. Outcomes assessed were device success rate, in-hospital major adverse events, and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Independent predictors of mortality after urgent/emergent TAVR were examined. RESULTS: Of 40,042 patients who underwent TAVR, 3,952 (9.9%) were urgent/emergent (median STS PROM score 11.8 [interquartile range: 7.6 to 17.9]). Device success rate was statistically lower, but not clinically different after urgent/emergent versus elective TAVR (92.6% vs. 93.7%; p = 0.007). Rates of major and/or life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, new permanent pacemaker placement, conversion to SAVR, and paravalvular regurgitation were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with elective TAVR, patients undergoing urgent/emergent TAVR had higher rates of acute kidney injury and/or new dialysis (8.2% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality (8.7% vs. 4.3%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.48), and 1-year mortality (29.1% vs. 17.5%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.31). In patients undergoing urgent/emergent TAVR, non-femoral access and cardiopulmonary bypass were associated with increased risk, whereas use of balloon-expandable valve was associated with decreased risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent/emergent TAVR is feasible with acceptable outcomes and may be a reasonable option in a selected group of patients with severe AS.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to examine outcomes and identify independent predictors of mortality among patients undergoing urgent/emergent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Data on urgent/emergent TAVR as a rescue therapy for decompensated severe aortic stenosis (AS) are limited. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry linked with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims was used to identify patients who underwent urgent/emergent versus elective TAVR between November 2011 and June 2016. Outcomes assessed were device success rate, in-hospital major adverse events, and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Independent predictors of mortality after urgent/emergent TAVR were examined. RESULTS: Of 40,042 patients who underwent TAVR, 3,952 (9.9%) were urgent/emergent (median STS PROM score 11.8 [interquartile range: 7.6 to 17.9]). Device success rate was statistically lower, but not clinically different after urgent/emergent versus elective TAVR (92.6% vs. 93.7%; p = 0.007). Rates of major and/or life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, new permanent pacemaker placement, conversion to SAVR, and paravalvular regurgitation were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with elective TAVR, patients undergoing urgent/emergent TAVR had higher rates of acute kidney injury and/or new dialysis (8.2% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality (8.7% vs. 4.3%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.48), and 1-year mortality (29.1% vs. 17.5%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.31). In patients undergoing urgent/emergent TAVR, non-femoral access and cardiopulmonary bypass were associated with increased risk, whereas use of balloon-expandable valve was associated with decreased risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent/emergent TAVR is feasible with acceptable outcomes and may be a reasonable option in a selected group of patients with severe AS.
Authors: Javier Castrodeza; Ana Mª Serrador Frutos; Ignacio J Amat-Santos; Inés Sayago Silva; José Alberto San Román Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: John K Peel; Rafael Neves Miranda; David Naimark; Graham Woodward; Mamas A Mamas; Mina Madan; Harindra C Wijeysundera Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Hans Huang; Christopher P Kovach; Sean Bell; Mark Reisman; Gabriel Aldea; James M McCabe; Danny Dvir; Creighton Don Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2019-11-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Arpad Lux; Leo F Veenstra; Suzanne Kats; Wim Dohmen; Jos G Maessen; Arnoud W J van 't Hof; Bart Maesen Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Kush P Patel; Thomas A Treibel; Paul R Scully; Michael Fertleman; Samuel Searle; Daniel Davis; James C Moon; Michael J Mullen Journal: Interv Cardiol Date: 2022-01-18