Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Recipients of Solid Organ Transplants and Liver Cirrhosis: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of National Readmission Data. The American journal of cardiology Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to grow in the United States. There are limited data on recipients of solid organ transplant (SOT) and patients with liver cirrhosis who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR). Our study aims to evaluate outcomes in these populations. Using the national readmission database (2016 to 2020), we identified recipients of SOT and patients with liver cirrhosis without previous liver transplants who were admitted for severe aortic stenosis and underwent either TAVR or surgical AVR (SAVR). We used multivariable regression for adjusted analysis and the propensity score matching model, implementing complete Mahalanobis distance matching within the Propensity Score Caliper (0.2) to match TAVR and SAVR cohorts for outcomes. Of 3,394 hospitalizations for AVR in recipients of SOT, 2,181 underwent TAVR, and 1,213 underwent SAVR. On propensity-matched analysis, SAVR was associated with more adverse events than was TAVR, including in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs 1.1%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.49, p <0.001), acute kidney injury (43.7% vs 10.2%, p <0.001), cardiogenic shock (9.0% vs 1.6%, p <0.001), sudden cardiac arrest (15.9 vs 6.0%, p <0.001), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (28% vs 10.4%, p <0.001), and net adverse events (72.8 vs 37.6%, p <0.001). A greater median length of stay (10 vs 2 days, p <0.001) and adjusted cost ($80,842 vs $57,014, p <0.001) were also observed. The readmission rates were the same for both cohorts after a 6-month follow-up. Similarly, in 14,763 hospitalizations for AVR in liver cirrhosis, 7,109 patients underwent TAVR, and 7,654 underwent SAVR. In propensity-matched cohorts (n = 2,341), SAVR was found to be associated with greater adverse events, including in-hospital mortality (19.8% vs 10%), stroke (6.7% vs 2%), acute kidney injury (67.7% vs 30.3%), cardiogenic shock (41.9% vs 19.9%), sudden cardiac arrest (31.8% vs 13.2%, aOR 2.89), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.2% vs 35.7%), and net adverse events (86% vs 59.5%) (p <0.001). A greater median length of stay (16 vs 3 days) and cost ($500,218 vs $263,383) were also observed (p <0.001). However, the rate of readmissions at 30-day (9% vs 11.1%) and 180-day intervals (33.4% vs 39.8%) was lower for the SAVR cohort (p <0.05). In recipients of SOT and patients with liver cirrhosis, SAVR is associated with greater short-term mortality, adverse events, and healthcare burden than is TAVR. TAVR is a relatively safer alternative to SAVR in these patient populations, although further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcomes. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.018

Guidelines vs Practice: Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults ≤60 Years. The Annals of thoracic surgery BACKGROUND:Consensus guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis aged ≤65 years. This analysis evaluates clinical practice and outcomes of TAVR and SAVR in patients aged ≤60 years. METHODS:We identified 2360 patients aged ≤60 years, including 523 TAVR (22.2%) and 1837 SAVR (77.8%) procedures, from 2013 through 2021 using the California Department of Health Care Access and Information database. The median follow-up time was 2.4 years (interquartile range, 1.1-4.5 years) after TAVR and 4.9 years (interquartile range, 2.8-6.9 years) after SAVR. The primary outcome was 5-year survival. Secondary outcomes included cumulative incidences of reoperation, endocarditis, stroke, and heart failure readmissions with death as a competing risk, compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS:Between 2013 and 2021 TAVR rates in patients aged ≤60 years increased from 7.2% to 45.7% (annual increase of 4.7%, P < .001). Mortality at 30 days was similar for SAVR and TAVR (0.2% vs 0.4%, P = .20). In 358 propensity-matched pairs, TAVR was associated with an increased hazard of 5-year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .02). There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidences of reoperation (2.2% vs 3.8%, P = .25), stroke (1.1% vs 0.8%, P = .39), endocarditis (0.8% vs 0.4%, P = .38), and heart failure readmission (1.9% vs 1.2%, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS:TAVR use approaches SAVR use in patients aged ≤60 years in California and is associated with significantly worse 5-year survival. This may indicate a need for randomized trials to inform best practice recommendations. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.07.036

Trends in Complications Among Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States. Journal of the American Heart Association BACKGROUND:The treatment of severe aortic stenosis has evolved considerably since the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), yet trends in complications for patients undergoing TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at a national level have yet to be evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS:We performed a retrospective cohort study using Medicare data to evaluate temporal trends in complications among beneficiaries, aged ≥65 years, treated with elective isolated transfemoral TAVR or SAVR between 2012 and 2019. The study end point was the occurrence of a major complication (composite outcome) during index and up to 30 days after. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess odds of complications for TAVR and SAVR, individually over time, and for TAVR versus SAVR, over time. The cohort included 211 212 patients (mean±SD age, 78.6±7.3 years; 45.0% women). Complication rates during index following elective isolated aortic valve replacement decreased from 49% in 2012 to 22% in 2019. These reductions were more pronounced for TAVR (41% to >19%, Δ=22%) than SAVR (51% to >47%, Δ=4%). After risk adjustment, the risk of any complication with TAVR was 47% (<0.0001) lower compared with SAVR in 2012, and 78% (<0.0001) lower in 2019. TAVR was independently associated with reduced odds of complications each year compared with 2012, with the magnitude of benefit increasing over time (2013 versus 2012: odds ratio [OR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.97]; 2019 versus 2012: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.33-0.38]). These findings are consistent for complications up to 30 days from index. CONCLUSIONS:Between 2012 and 2019, the risk of complications after aortic valve replacement among Medicare beneficiaries decreased significantly, with larger absolute and relative changes among patients treated with TAVR than SAVR. 10.1161/JAHA.123.031461

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock. European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care BACKGROUND:Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are an extremely high-risk population with a poor prognosis in the absence of definitive therapy. AIMS:To compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical AVR (SAVR) in patients with AS-CS. METHODS:We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-2021) to identify patients hospitalized for AS-CS who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR were compared using multivariable regression and propensity-matching analyses. Ninety-day readmissions were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS:Of 16,072 patients hospitalized for AS-CS, 6,381 (39.7%) underwent isolated TAVR, and 9,691 (60.3%) underwent isolated SAVR. From 2016 through 2021, the proportion of TAVR increased from 29.5% to 46.5% and the proportion of SAVR correspondingly decreased in AS-CS (ptrend<0.01). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, TAVR was associated with lower odds of stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.79), acute kidney injury (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92), and major bleeding (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.72) and higher odds of vascular complications (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.96) compared with SAVR. In-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker placement, and 90-day all-cause and heart failure readmissions were similar. Length of stay was shorter and total costs and nonhome discharges were lower with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS:This nationwide observational analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed in patients with AS-CS and is associated with similar in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions, but lower in-hospital complications and resource utilization compared with SAVR. 10.1093/ehjacc/zuae103

Clinical Outcomes in Relation to Total Hospital Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Volumes. Journal of the American Heart Association BACKGROUND:There is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between overall hospital volumes for total aortic valve replacement (AVR; transcatheter AVR [TAVR] or surgical AVR [SAVR]) and patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS:We queried the 2019 Nationwide Readmission Database for patients undergoing AVR. Based on procedural volumes of TAVR or SAVR, we classified hospitals as high (≥50th percentile) or low (<50th percentile) volume centers and categorized hospitals as high TAVR/high SAVR, high TAVR/low SAVR, high SAVR/low TAVR, and low TAVR/low SAVR. Multivariable regression models were employed. The main study outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission after total AVR. Our final analysis included 72 123 patients undergoing AVR at 400 hospitals across the United States. The median (interquartile range) hospital procedural volumes for total AVR, TAVR, and SAVR were 137 (86-210), 82 (50-127), and 56 (31-87) procedures, respectively. There was an inverse correlation between hospital procedural volumes of AVR, TAVR, or SAVR and in-hospital mortality after total AVR but not with 30-day readmission. Using high TAVR/high SAVR hospitals as reference, there was higher in-hospital mortality after total AVR among low TAVR/low SAVR hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.29 [95% CI, 1.07-1.56]) but similar in-hospital mortality among high TAVR/low SAVR hospitals and low TAVR/high SAVR volumes. There was no difference in 30-day readmission rates after total AVR among the 4 hospital categories. CONCLUSIONS:Nationwide data revealed that in-hospital mortality after total AVR (SAVR or TAVR) is inversely related to hospital total volumes of AVR. Patients with aortic stenosis have better outcomes if they are managed among experienced centers with high case volumes of both TAVR and SAVR. 10.1161/JAHA.124.035719