Dataset Information

Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Aneurysm: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients with thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysms (AA). Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we explored the safety of TAVR among patients with a diagnosis of AA.

Methods

We queried the National Inpatient Sample database (2012-2017) for hospitalized patients undergoing TAVR, using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for endovascular TAVR. Reports show that > 95% of endovascular TAVR in the US is via transfemoral access, so our population are mostly patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Using propensity score matching, we compared the trends and outcomes of TAVR procedures among patients with versus without AA.

Results

From a total sample of 29,517 individuals who had TAVR procedures between January 2012 and December 2017, 910 had a diagnosis of AA. In 774 matched-pair analysis, all-cause in-hospital mortality was similar in patients with and without AA OR 0.63 [(95% CI 0.28-1.43), p = 0.20]. The median length of stay was higher in patients with AA: 4 days (IQR 2.0-7.0) versus 3 days (IQR 2.0-6.0) p = 0.01. Risk of AKI [OR 1.01 (0.73-1.39), p = 0.87], heart block requiring pacemaker placement [OR 1.17 (0.81-1.69), p = 0.40], aortic dissection [OR 2.38 (0.41-13.75), p = 0.25], acute limb ischemia [OR 0.46 (0.18-1.16), p = 0.09], vascular complications [OR 0.80 (0.34-1.89), p = 0.53], post-op bleeding [OR 1.12 (0.81-1.57), p = 0.42], blood transfusion [OR 1.20 (0.84-1.70), p = 0.26], and stroke [OR 0.58 (0.24-1.39), p = 0.25] were similar in those with and without AA.

Conclusions

Data from a large nationwide database demonstrated that patients with AA undergoing TAVR are associated with similar in-hospital outcomes compared with patients without AA.

SUBMITTER: Ugwu JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8933596 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Aneurysm: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Ugwu Justin K JK Ndulue Jideofor K JK Sherif Khaled A KA Alliu Samson S Elbadawi Ayman A Taskesen Tuncay T Hussein Doha D Ugwu Erugo Judith N JN Chatila Khaled F KF Almustafa Ahmed A Khalife Wissam I WI Kumfa Paul N PN

Cardiology and therapy 20220306 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients with thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysms (AA). Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we explored the safety of TAVR among patients with a diagnosis of AA.<h4>Methods</h4>We queried the National Inpatient Sample database (2012-2017) for hospitalized patients undergoing TAVR, using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for endovascular TAVR. Reports show that > ...[more]

PMID: 35249199

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Project description:BackgroundMorbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate.AimsOur aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR.MethodsA multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs.ResultsAfter matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737).ConclusionsSAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.

Project description:Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P=0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P=0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P=0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P=0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P=0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.

Dataset Information

Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Aneurysm: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Aneurysm: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets