Jialin Mao1, Rita F Redberg2, John D Carroll3, Danica Marinac-Dabic4, John Laschinger4, Vinod Thourani5, Michael Mack6, Art Sedrakyan1. 1. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora. 4. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 5. Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, Maryland. 6. Cardiovascular Surgery, Baylor Health Care System, Plano, Texas.
Abstract
Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited. Objective: To examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined. Results: Among the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.
Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited. Objective: To examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined. Results: Among the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.
Authors: David R Holmes; Michael J Mack; Sanjay Kaul; Arvind Agnihotri; Karen P Alexander; Steven R Bailey; John H Calhoon; Blase A Carabello; Milind Y Desai; Fred H Edwards; Gary S Francis; Timothy J Gardner; A Pieter Kappetein; Jane A Linderbaum; Chirojit Mukherjee; Debabrata Mukherjee; Catherine M Otto; Carlos E Ruiz; Ralph L Sacco; Donnette Smith; James D Thomas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John D Carroll; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Dadi Dai; Roland Matsouaka; Eugene Blackstone; Fred Edwards; Frederick A Masoudi; Michael Mack; Eric D Peterson; David Holmes; John S Rumsfeld; E Murat Tuzcu; Frederick Grover Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Joseph E Bavaria; Carl L Tommaso; Ralph G Brindis; John D Carroll; G Michael Deeb; Ted E Feldman; Thomas G Gleason; Eric M Horlick; Clifford J Kavinsky; Dharam J Kumbhani; D Craig Miller; A Allen Seals; David M Shahian; Richard J Shemin; Thoralf M Sundt; Vinod H Thourani Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sean M O'Brien; David J Cohen; John S Rumsfeld; J Matthew Brennan; David M Shahian; David Dai; David R Holmes; Rosemarie B Hakim; Vinod H Thourani; Eric D Peterson; Fred H Edwards Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-09-13
Authors: Jeffrey J Popma; David H Adams; Michael J Reardon; Steven J Yakubov; Neal S Kleiman; David Heimansohn; James Hermiller; G Chad Hughes; J Kevin Harrison; Joseph Coselli; Jose Diez; Ali Kafi; Theodore Schreiber; Thomas G Gleason; John Conte; Maurice Buchbinder; G Michael Deeb; Blasé Carabello; Patrick W Serruys; Sharla Chenoweth; Jae K Oh Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Luke K Kim; Robert M Minutello; Dmitriy N Feldman; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Geoffrey Bergman; Harsimran Singh; Ryan K Kaple; S Chiu Wong Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Laura Chaves Cerdas; Danny R Hughes; Michael P Recht; Sharyl J Nass; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Sameer A Hirji; Edward D Percy; Cheryl K Zogg; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Spencer Kiehm; Marc Pelletier; Tsuyoshi Kaneko Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Sameer A Hirji; Ellen McCarthy; Dae Kim; Siobhan McGurk; Julius Ejiofor; Fernando Ramirez-Del Val; Ahmed A Kolkailah; Bernard Rosner; Douglas Shook; Charles Nyman; Natalia Berry; Piotr Sobieszczyk; Marc Pelletier; Pinak Shah; Patrick O'Gara; Tsuyoshi Kaneko Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Michael P Thompson; Hechuan Hou; Alexander A Brescia; Francis D Pagani; Devraj Sukul; Jeffrey S McCullough; Donald S Likosky Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-10-23 Impact factor: 5.501