Michael Megaly1, Paul Sorajja2, João L Cavalcante2, Ashish Pershad3, Mario Gössl2, Bishoy Abraham4, Mohamed Omer1, Ayman Elbadawi5, Santiago Garcia6. 1. Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Division of Cardiology, Banner University Medical Center, University of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. Division of Internal Medicine, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 5. Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 6. Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Electronic address: santiagogarcia@me.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes with use of the Sentinel cerebral protection system (CPS) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: The role of the Sentinel CPS in preventing clinical ischemic stroke has been controversial. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from the last three quarters of 2017, after the approval of the Sentinel CPS device, was queried to identify hospitalizations for TAVR. A 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis to compare in-hospital outcomes with versus without use of the CPS. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic strokes. RESULTS: A total of 36,220 weighted discharges of patients who underwent TAVR (525 with the CPS and 35,695 without) were identified. The overall percentages of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were 2.4% and 0.2%, respectively. After propensity score matching (525 CPS, 1,050 no CPS), the risk for ischemic stroke was lower with use of the CPS (1 % vs. 3.8%, odd ratio [OR]: 0.243 (95% confidence interval: 0.095 to 0.619); p = 0.003). The cost of the index hospitalization was higher with use of the CPS ($47,783 vs. $44,578; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analysis, use of the CPS was independently associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (OR: 0.380; 95% confidence interval: 0.157 to 0.992; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Sentinel CPS in patients undergoing TAVR is associated with a lower incidence of ischemic stroke and in-hospital mortality, without an increased risk for procedural complications but with an increased cost of the index hospitalization.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes with use of the Sentinel cerebral protection system (CPS) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: The role of the Sentinel CPS in preventing clinical ischemic stroke has been controversial. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from the last three quarters of 2017, after the approval of the Sentinel CPS device, was queried to identify hospitalizations for TAVR. A 1:2 propensity score-matched analysis to compare in-hospital outcomes with versus without use of the CPS. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic strokes. RESULTS: A total of 36,220 weighted discharges of patients who underwent TAVR (525 with the CPS and 35,695 without) were identified. The overall percentages of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were 2.4% and 0.2%, respectively. After propensity score matching (525 CPS, 1,050 no CPS), the risk for ischemic stroke was lower with use of the CPS (1 % vs. 3.8%, odd ratio [OR]: 0.243 (95% confidence interval: 0.095 to 0.619); p = 0.003). The cost of the index hospitalization was higher with use of the CPS ($47,783 vs. $44,578; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analysis, use of the CPS was independently associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (OR: 0.380; 95% confidence interval: 0.157 to 0.992; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Sentinel CPS in patients undergoing TAVR is associated with a lower incidence of ischemic stroke and in-hospital mortality, without an increased risk for procedural complications but with an increased cost of the index hospitalization.
Authors: Ana Paula Tagliari; Enrico Ferrari; Philipp K Haager; Martin Oliver Schmiady; Luca Vicentini; Mara Gavazzoni; Marco Gennari; Lucas Jörg; Ahmed Aziz Khattab; Stefan Blöchlinger; Francesco Maisano; Maurizio Taramasso Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-12-20 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Carolina Donà; Matthias Koschutnik; Christian Nitsche; Max-Paul Winter; Veronika Seidl; Jolanta Siller-Matula; Markus Mach; Martin Andreas; Philipp Bartko; Andreas Anselm Kammerlander; Georg Goliasch; Irene Lang; Christian Hengstenberg; Julia Mascherbauer Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-21
Authors: Neel M Butala; Raj Makkar; Eric A Secemsky; Dianne Gallup; Guillaume Marquis-Gravel; Andrzej S Kosinski; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Javier A Valle; Steven M Bradley; Tarun Chakravarty; Robert W Yeh; David J Cohen Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 39.918