Jordan B Strom1,2,3, Jiaman Xu2,3, Ariela R Orkaby3,4, Changyu Shen2,3, Yang Song2,3, Brian R Charest3,4, Dae H Kim5,3, David J Cohen6, Daniel B Kramer1,2,3, John A Spertus7, Robert E Gerszten1,3, Robert W Yeh1,2,3. 1. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine (J.B.S., D.B.K., R.E.G., R.W.Y.), Boston, MA. 2. Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology (J.B.S., J.X., C.S., Y.S., D.B.K., R.W.Y.), Boston, MA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (J.B.S., J.X., A.R.O., C.S., Y.S., B.R.C., D.H.K., D.B.K., R.E.G., R.W.Y.). 4. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Boston, MA (A.R.O., B.R.C.). 5. Division of Gerontology (D.H.K.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 6. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY (D.J.C.). 7. Section of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine (J.A.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis, but whether or not frail patients derive differential benefit from transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) AVR is uncertain. METHODS: We linked adults ≥65 years old in the US CoreValve HiR trial (High-Risk) or SURTAVI trial (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to Medicare claims, February 2, 2011, to September 30, 2015. Two frailty measures, a deficit-based and phenotype-based frailty index (FI), were generated. The treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR was evaluated within FI tertiles for the primary end point of death and nondeath secondary outcomes, using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 1442 (linkage rate =60.0%) individuals included, 741 (51.4%) individuals received TAVR and 701 (48.6%) received SAVR (mean age 81.8±6.1 years, 44.0% female). Although 1-year death rates in the highest FI tertiles (deficit-based FI 36.7% and phenotype-based FI 33.8%) were 2- to 3-fold higher than the lowest tertiles (deficit-based FI 13.4%; hazard ratio, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.26-4.02], P<0.001; phenotype-based FI 17.9%; hazard ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.58-2.67], P<0.001), there were no significant differences in the relative or absolute treatment effect of SAVR versus TAVR across FI tertiles for all death, nondeath, and functional outcomes (all interaction P>0.05). Results remained consistent across individual trials, frailty definitions, and when considering the nonlinked trial data. CONCLUSIONS: Two different frailty indices based on Fried and Rockwood definitions identified individuals at higher risk of death and functional impairment but no differential benefit from TAVR versus SAVR.
BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis, but whether or not frail patients derive differential benefit from transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) AVR is uncertain. METHODS: We linked adults ≥65 years old in the US CoreValve HiR trial (High-Risk) or SURTAVI trial (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to Medicare claims, February 2, 2011, to September 30, 2015. Two frailty measures, a deficit-based and phenotype-based frailty index (FI), were generated. The treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR was evaluated within FI tertiles for the primary end point of death and nondeath secondary outcomes, using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 1442 (linkage rate =60.0%) individuals included, 741 (51.4%) individuals received TAVR and 701 (48.6%) received SAVR (mean age 81.8±6.1 years, 44.0% female). Although 1-year death rates in the highest FI tertiles (deficit-based FI 36.7% and phenotype-based FI 33.8%) were 2- to 3-fold higher than the lowest tertiles (deficit-based FI 13.4%; hazard ratio, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.26-4.02], P<0.001; phenotype-based FI 17.9%; hazard ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.58-2.67], P<0.001), there were no significant differences in the relative or absolute treatment effect of SAVR versus TAVR across FI tertiles for all death, nondeath, and functional outcomes (all interaction P>0.05). Results remained consistent across individual trials, frailty definitions, and when considering the nonlinked trial data. CONCLUSIONS: Two different frailty indices based on Fried and Rockwood definitions identified individuals at higher risk of death and functional impairment but no differential benefit from TAVR versus SAVR.
Authors: N M de Vries; J B Staal; C D van Ravensberg; J S M Hobbelen; M G M Olde Rikkert; M W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Catherine M Otto; Dharam J Kumbhani; Karen P Alexander; John H Calhoon; Milind Y Desai; Sanjay Kaul; James C Lee; Carlos E Ruiz; Christina M Vassileva Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sean M O'Brien; Liqi Feng; Xia He; Ying Xian; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Vinay Badhwar; Paul A Kurlansky; Anthony P Furnary; Joseph C Cleveland; Kevin W Lobdell; Christina Vassileva; Moritz C Wyler von Ballmoos; Vinod H Thourani; J Scott Rankin; James R Edgerton; Richard S D'Agostino; Nimesh D Desai; Fred H Edwards; David M Shahian Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jonathan Afilalo; Sandra Lauck; Dae H Kim; Thierry Lefèvre; Nicolo Piazza; Kevin Lachapelle; Giuseppe Martucci; Andre Lamy; Marino Labinaz; Mark D Peterson; Rakesh C Arora; Nicolas Noiseux; Andrew Rassi; Igor F Palacios; Philippe Généreux; Brian R Lindman; Anita W Asgar; Caroline A Kim; Amanda Trnkus; José A Morais; Yves Langlois; Lawrence G Rudski; Jean-Francois Morin; Jeffrey J Popma; John G Webb; Louis P Perrault Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jodi B Segal; Hsien-Yen Chang; Yu Du; Jeremy D Walston; Michelle C Carlson; Ravi Varadhan Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jordan B Strom; Hector Tamez; Yuansong Zhao; Linda R Valsdottir; Jeptha Curtis; J Matthew Brennan; Changyu Shen; Jeffrey J Popma; Laura Mauri; Robert W Yeh Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jordan B Strom; Jiaman Xu; Ariela R Orkaby; Changyu Shen; Brian R Charest; Dae H Kim; David J Cohen; Daniel B Kramer; John A Spertus; Robert E Gerszten; Robert W Yeh Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 5.501