scholarly journals THE IMPACT OF VENTRICULAR-ARTERIAL COUPLING AFTER TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT ON MID-TERM CLINICAL OUTCOMES

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (11) ◽  
pp. 1107
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Yokoyama ◽  
Futoshi Yamanaka ◽  
Koki Shishido ◽  
Tomoki Ochiai ◽  
Shohei Yokota ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziwei Xi ◽  
Tong Liu ◽  
Jing Liang ◽  
Yujie Zhou ◽  
Wei Liu

Abstract Background: The incidence of conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have remained a common concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of postprocedural PPM implantation following TAVR on clinical outcomes. Methods: We performed a systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies that reported raw data on clinical outcomes of patients with and without PPM implantation after TAVR and followed up patients for 10 months or longer. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, heart failure and a composite of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). Results: Data from 20 studies with a total of 21666 patients undergoing TAVR, of whom 12.5% required PPM implantation after intervention, were analysed and the mean duration follow-up was 16.9 months. The rate of PPM ranged from 6.2% to 32.8% among different studies. A total of 6753 (31.2%) patients underwent TAVR with self-expandable prosthesis and 14913 (68.8%) with balloon-expandable prosthesis. The incidence of postprocedural PPM implantation was higher with the self-expandable prosthesis (n=1717, 25.4%) compared with the balloon-expandable prosthesis (n=996, 6.7%). PPM after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.25; P=0.03) but not incidence of stroke and MI (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.64-1.13; P=0.27). Conclusions: In patients undergoing TAVR, the PPM implantation after intervention was associated higher all-cause mortality but not cardiovascular mortality, heart failure and stroke or MI, which remain an unsolved issue of TAVR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 1129
Author(s):  
Giorgio Medranda ◽  
Cheng Zhang ◽  
Brian Case ◽  
Charan Yerasi ◽  
Brian Forrestal ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1209-1215
Author(s):  
Giorgio A. Medranda ◽  
Anees Musallam ◽  
Cheng Zhang ◽  
Hank Rappaport ◽  
Paige E. Gallino ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Fenton McCarthy ◽  
Katherine M McDermott ◽  
Vinay Kini ◽  
Dale Kobrin ◽  
Nimesh D Desai ◽  
...  

Background: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) demonstrated excellent outcomes in clinical trials of inoperable/high-risk patients. Subsequent approval by the Food and Drug Administration and National Coverage Determination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established unique volume requirements for institutions and physicians to perform TAVR. Diffusion of prior cardiovascular interventions has involved less stringent policies and exhibited significant institutional variation in clinical outcomes. Our objective is to compare risk-standardized procedural outcomes across US hospitals performing TAVR to identify hospitals with outlying post-procedure mortality rates. Methods: All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2011 and November 30, 2012 were identified. Thirty-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) were calculated using the Hospital Compare statistical method, a well-validated hierarchical generalized linear model. Results: Claims were examined from 5044 patients undergoing TAVR at 199 hospitals, with a crude 30-day mortality rate of 5.97%. RSMRs modeled using patient-level predictors varied from 4.5 % to 9.0 % (Figure 1). One hospital had a RSMR statistically lower than the national mean (4.5%, P<0.05), and two hospitals had RSMRs statistically higher than the national mean (8.5% and 6.9%, P<0.05). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes among TAVR hospitals in high-risk/inoperable patients demonstrated very little variability, few outliers, and excellent outcomes comparable to pre-approval clinical trials. This may be the result of the unique policy and regulatory environment governing the CMS coverage determination for TAVR institutions. As TAVR disseminates to additional hospitals and other new cardiovascular interventions are inevitably introduced, risk-standardized outcome comparisons across hospitals may facilitate ongoing surveillance to ensure high quality outcomes at all active centers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document