Dataset Information

Institutional case volume and mortality after aortic and mitral valve replacement: a nationwide study in two Korean cohorts

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are only a handful of published studies regarding the volume-outcome relationship in heart valve surgery. We evaluated the association between institutional case volume and mortality after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and mitral valve replacement (MVR).

Methods

Two separate cohorts of all adults who underwent AVR or MVR, respectively, between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed using a Korean healthcare insurance database. Hospitals performing AVRs were divided into three groups according to the average annual case volume: the low- (< 20 cases/year), medium- (20–70 cases/year), and high-volume centers (> 70 cases/year). Hospitals performing MVRs were also grouped as the low- (< 15 cases/year), medium- (15–40 cases/year), or high-volume centers (> 40 cases/year). In-hospital mortality after AVR or MVR were compared among the groups.

Results

In total, 7875 AVR and 5084 MVR cases were analyzed. In-hospital mortality after AVR was 8.3% (192/2318), 4.0% (84/2102), and 2.6% (90/3455) in the low-, medium-, and high-volume centers, respectively. The adjusted risk was higher in the low- (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73–3.09) and medium-volume centers (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09–2.15) compared to the high-volume centers. In-hospital mortality after MVR was 9.3% (155/1663), 6.3% (94/1501), and 2.9% (56/1920) in the low-, medium-, and high-volume centers, respectively. Compared to the high-volume centers, the medium- (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.35–2.88) and low-volume centers (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.60–3.27) showed higher adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Lower case volume is associated with increased in-hospital mortality after AVR and MVR. The results warrant a comprehensive discussion regarding regionalization/centralization of cardiac valve replacements to optimize patient outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01945-0.

SUBMITTER: Nam K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9392916 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceHospitals 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.

Project description:ObjectivesIt is uncertain whether concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement for moderate or greater secondary mitral regurgitation at the time of coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery improves long-term survival.MethodsPatients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or aortic valve replacement surgery with moderate or greater secondary mitral regurgitation were reviewed. The effect of concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement upon long-term mortality was assessed while accounting for patient and operative characteristics and mitral regurgitation severity.ResultsOf 1,515 patients, 938 underwent coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery alone and 577 underwent concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement. Concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement did not alter the risk of postoperative mortality for patients with moderate mitral regurgitation (hazard ratio = 0.93; 0.75-1.17) or more-than-moderate mitral regurgitation (hazard ratio = 1.09; 0.74-1.60) in multivariable regression. Patients with more-than-moderate mitral regurgitation undergoing coronary artery bypass graft-only surgery had a survival advantage from concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement in the first two postoperative years (P = 0.028) that did not persist beyond that time. Patients who underwent concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement had a higher rate of later mitral valve operation or reoperation over the five subsequent years (1.9% vs. 0.2%; P = 0.0014) than those who did not.ConclusionsThese observations suggest that mitral valve repair or replacement for more-than-moderate mitral regurgitation at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting may be reasonable in a suitably selected coronary artery bypass graft population but not for aortic valve replacement, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting. Our findings are supportive of 2021 European guidelines that severe secondary mitral regurgitation "should" or be "reasonabl[y]" intervened upon at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting but do not support 2020 American guidelines for performing mitral valve repair or replacement concurrent with aortic valve replacement, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients undergoing aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologic prosthesis is used. Biologic prostheses have been increasingly favored despite limited evidence supporting this practice.MethodsWe compared long-term mortality and rates of reoperation, stroke, and bleeding between inverse-probability-weighted cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic prosthesis in California in the period from 1996 through 2013. Patients were stratified into different age groups on the basis of valve position (aortic vs. mitral valve).ResultsFrom 1996 through 2013, the use of biologic prostheses increased substantially for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral-valve replacement. Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01). The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher among recipients of a biologic prosthesis than among recipients of a mechanical prosthesis. Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of bleeding and, in some age groups, stroke than did recipients of a biologic prosthesis.ConclusionsThe long-term mortality benefit that was associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biologic prosthesis, persisted until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).