| Related Articles |
In-hospital outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in non-teaching hospitals.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov 08;:
Authors: Ando T, Adegbala O, Villablanca PA, Briasoulis A, Takagi H, Grines CL, Schreiber T, Nazif T, Kodali S, Afonso L
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in non-teaching hospitals.
BACKGROUND: TAVR has become widely available in the United States. However, the comparative outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in non-teaching hospitals are largely under explored.
METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2011 to September 2015 to identify those who were 50 years or above and underwent either trans-arterial TAVR or SAVR at non-teaching hospital. In-hospital clinical outcomes were compared with odds ratio (OR) in propensity-matched cohorts.
RESULTS: We identified un-weighted 957 and 7,465 SAVR admissions. In propensity-matched model, 596 admissions in each arm were included for final analysis. In-patient mortality (3.9 vs. 2.5%, OR 1.54, P = 0.34), acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (2.2 vs. 2.7%, OR 0.80, P = 0.57), stroke (2.0 vs. 3.2%, OR 0.61, P = 0.20), and pacemaker placement (8.9 vs. 6.4%, OR 1.47, P = 0.09) was similar between TAVR and SAVR. Sub-group analysis showed that female and those with prior coronary artery bypass surgery had higher risk of in-patient morality in TAVR admission. Cost was higher (59,103 vs. 53,411 dollars, P = 0.006) but length of stay was shorter in TAVR (6.9 vs. 10.2 days, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: TAVR conferred similar in-hospital mortality and major peri-procedural complications compared with SAVR in non-teaching hospitals. For those with limited access to teaching hospitals, non-teaching hospitals appear to be a reasonable option for candidates of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.
PMID: 30408309 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]