Abstract 381: Clinical Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Among US Hospitals

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fenton McCarthy ◽  
Katherine M McDermott ◽  
Vinay Kini ◽  
Dale Kobrin ◽  
Nimesh D Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Cardiovascular Interventions

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.

scholarly journals Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with aortic stenosis and severe coronary artery disease: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Majid Ahsan ◽  
Rolf Alexander Jánosi ◽  
Tienush Rassaf ◽  
Alexander Lind
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often present with multiple comorbidities and suffer from critical coronary artery disease (CAD). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the therapy of choice for moderate to high-risk patients. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (v-a-ECMO) offers the possibility of temporary cardiac support to manage life-threatening critical situations. Case summary Here, we describe the management of a patient with severe AS and CAD with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We used v-a-ECMO as an emergency strategy in cardiogenic shock during a high-risk coronary intervention to stabilize the patient, and as a further bridge to TAVR. Discussion Very high-risk patients with severe AS are unlikely to tolerate the added risk of surgical aortic valve replacement. Using ECMO may help them to benefit from TAVR as the only treatment option available.

Real-World Experience With the SAPIEN 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve: A Propensity-Matched Analysis From the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamim M. Nazif ◽  
Thomas J. Cahill ◽  
David Daniels ◽  
James M. McCabe ◽  
Mark Reisman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Heart Valve ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Transcatheter Heart Valve ◽  
Sapien 3 ◽  
Transcatheter Valve

Background: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) is a new generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve with a modified external skirt that is designed to reduce PVR, but reports of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes are limited. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Ultra and the original SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valve in a large national registry. Methods: Data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was used to compare patients who underwent elective, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Ultra or S3 transcatheter heart valve. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed in a propensity-matched cohort at discharge and 30 days. Results: Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Ultra (N=1324) from January 2019 to February 2020 were propensity score–matched with patients treated with S3 (N=32 982) during the same period, resulting in 1324 matched pairs. There was no difference in the rate of device success between patients treated with Ultra and S3 (97.1% versus 98.0%, P =0.11). At hospital discharge, PVR was significantly reduced with Ultra compared with S3, with mild PVR in 9.0% versus 13.9% and moderate or greater PVR in 0.1% versus 0.4% (overall P <0.01). At 30 days, there were no differences between Ultra and S3 recipients in the rates of all-cause mortality or stroke (1.8% versus 2.8%, P =0.10), major vascular complications (1.1% versus 1.0%, P =0.84), or permanent pacemaker implantation (6.4% versus 6.2%, P =0.81). Conclusions: In this propensity-matched analysis from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, the Ultra transcatheter heart valve was associated with similar procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes, but reduced incidence of PVR, compared with S3. The clinical benefit of less PVR should be evaluated in longer-term studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document