scholarly journals Comparing outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with atrial arrythmias

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Gill

Abstract Introduction In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, clinical trials have demonstrated a similar mortality risk with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate-risk patients. However, data comparing these procedures in patients with atrial arrhythmias is lacking. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate and compare the in-hospital mortality and outcomes of TAVR and SAVR for severe aortic stenosis in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Methods We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using the 2018 National Inpatient Sample. Patients aged 50 years and older with TAVR or SAVR related hospitalizations were identified. Patients with endocarditis and those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or other valvular procedures were excluded. Propensity score matching was utilized to mitigate selection bias. The scoring was based on a multivariate logistic regression model accounting for age, gender, race, hospital type, hospital region, hospital teaching status, median household income, and medical comorbidities. Using 8-to-1-digit match, we paired each admission in TAVR group with one admission in SAVR group. Results In 2018, a total of 3487 TAVRs and 1466 SAVRs were performed in patients who had atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. TAVR and SAVR had no statistically significant difference in inpatient mortality (0.9% vs 0.8%, p=0.79). However, SAVR was associated with higher odds of cardiogenic shock (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.41–2.35, p<0.0001), acute kidney injury (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.77–2.97, p<0.0001), mechanical ventilation (OR 2.06; 95% CI 1.75–2.43, p<0.0001), pneumonia (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.37–2.28, p<0.0001), pneumothorax (OR 6.38; 95% CI 4.17–9.76, p<0.0001) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR 3.21; 95% CI 2.13–4.85, p<0.0001). On the contrary, SAVR was associated with decreased likelihood of subsequent cardiac conduction disorders (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51–0.79, p<0.0001) and pacemaker implantation (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49–0.98, p=0.037). SAVR was associated with an increased length of hospitalization (3.9 vs. 8.4 days, p<0.0001), with no difference in medical costs. Conclusion Inpatient mortality for TAVR and SAVR was similar in patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. TAVR was associated with a lower risk of inpatient complications, indicating greater suitability for high-risk patients. However, clinicians should be cognizant of the increased risk for cardiac conduction disorders after TAVR, necessitating pacemaker implantation. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Characteristics of the matched cohort Forest plot comparing outcomes

Author(s):  
Vinod H. Thourani ◽  
J. James Edelman ◽  
Sari D. Holmes ◽  
Tom C. Nguyen ◽  
John Carroll ◽  
...  

Objective There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons. Methods Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Results Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios. Conclusions In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient’s aortic valve disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document