Propensity matched comparison of in-hospital outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with previous history of CABG: Insights from the Nationwide inpatient sample

Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices in Aortic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis of 42,105 Patients

Background: In recent years, trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an excellent alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, there are several approved devices on the market, yet comparisons among them are scarce. We aimed to compare the various devices via a network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies that provide comparisons of either a single TAVI with SAVR or two different TAVI devices and report clinical outcomes. Results: We included 12 RCT and 13 propensity-matched studies comprising 42,105 patients, among whom 27,134 underwent TAVI using various valve systems (Sapien & Sapien XT, Sapien 3, Corvalve, Evolut & Evolut Pro, Acurate Neo, Portico). The mean follow-up time was 23.4 months. Sapien 3 was superior over SAVR in the reduction of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.53; 95%CrI 0.31–0.91), while no significant difference existed between other devices and SAVR. Aortic regurgitation was more frequent among TAVI devices compared to SAVR. There was no significant difference between the various THVs and SAVR in cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, NYHA class III-IV, and endocarditis. Conclusions: Newer generation TAVI devices, especially Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro are associated with improved outcomes compared to SAVR and other devices of the older generation.

Concordance of Guideline-Based Risk Stratification and Selection of Patients for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation or Surgical Replacement

The 2020 American Health Association/American College of Cardiology valve guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (AS) age <65 years and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for patients with AS age >80 years. We analyzed TAVI versus SAVR practice patterns using age-based recommendations. We compared 2016-to-2019 TAVI and isolated SAVR in northern New England at 5 centers according to guideline-recommended age groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of TAVI for the intermediate age group. The study was approved by each site's institutional review board in accordance with ongoing participation and quality improvement efforts in the Northern New England Cardiovascular Study Group. Among 4,161 patients with isolated severe AS, TAVI increased from 2016 to 2019: 55.8% versus 76.1%, p <0.01 for trend. SAVR for patients with AS age >80 years was uncommon and decreased over time: 13.1% versus 1.6%, p <0.01. TAVI utilization nearly doubled over time in young patients with AS age <65 years (14.3% vs 26.2%, p <0.01). Preference for SAVR decreased by 50% over time (p <0.01) in the intermediate age group (65 to 80 years). Independent predictors of TAVI among patients aged 65 to 80 years included older age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous stroke, and coronary artery bypass grafting, whereas vascular disease and clinical urgency favored SAVR. In conclusion, consistent with current American Health Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines, TAVI was the treatment of choice in >97% of severe patients with AS age >80 years by 2019. TAVI utilization in patients <65 years has doubled over time and thus may not reflect current guideline recommendations. TAVI is the preferred choice in those aged 65 to 80 years, especially among patients with previous stroke or coronary artery bypass grafting.

Medical malpractice in aortic valve and mitral valve replacement surgery in North America

BACKGROUND

Aortic and mitral valve replacement are commonly performed by cardiovascular surgeons, but little data quantitatively analyzes the etiology and prevalence of medical malpractice litigations involving these operations. This study aims to analyze incidence, cause, and resolution of medical malpractice lawsuits involving aortic and mitral valve replacements, alone and in combination with coronary artery bypass and/or aortic procedures.

METHODS

The Westlaw legal database was utilized to compile relevant litigations across the United States from 1994-2019. Clinical data, verdict data, demographic data, and litigation attributes were compiled. Fisher-exact tests and Mann-Whitney tests were performed for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred four malpractice litigations involving aortic valve replacement and 55 litigations involving mitral valve replacement were included in this analysis. The mean age of patients was 55.2 years and proportion of female patients was 32.7% in aortic valve replacements litigations, compared to a mean age of 54.1 years and female patients in 61.8% of mitral valve replacements litigations. Significant relationships exist between an alleged failure to monitor the patient and defendant verdicts (p=0.01), delayed treatment and defendant verdicts (p=0.04), and incidence of infective endocarditis and plaintiff verdicts (p=0.04) in aortic valve replacement litigations. Similarly, significant relationships exist between an alleged failure to diagnose and settlement verdicts (p=0.047), and stroke incidence and defendant verdicts (p=0.03) in mitral valve replacement litigations.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to excellent surgeon patient/family communication, administering surgical treatment in a timely manner, diagnosing and acting on concomitant medical conditions, and close patient monitoring may diminish medical malpractice litigation involving aortic and mitral valve replacement operations.

Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Many patients who have aortic stenosis and are transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have underwent prior cardiac surgery (PCS). The aim of this study was to provide a robust summary comparison between patients with PCS who underwent TAVR vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published articles on PubMed/Medline, Ovid, EMBASE, and Scopus from 2002 to 2019.

Results: A total of 13 studies were finally included, yielding a total of 23,148 participants. There was no statistical difference with 30-day [OR: 1.02 (0.86–1.21)] or 1-year mortality [OR: 1.18 (0.86–1.61)] between the two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that high-risk patients who underwent TAVR with the transapical approach were associated with increased risk of mortality [OR: 1.45 (1.00–2.11)]. However, those who underwent TAVR with endovascular approach had a comparable outcome with SAVR.

Conclusions: Primary outcomes after endovascular TAVR were similar to those with SAVR and superior to transapical TAVR treatment group in patients with PCS.

The Outcomes of Pulmonary Hypertension Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Underwent Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The outcomes for patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with pulmonary hypertension (PH) is not well understood. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with PH who underwent TAVI compared with SAVR. We identified patients who were diagnosed with PH and underwent TAVI SAVR for aortic valve stenosis in the National Inpatient Sample database who were admitted from 2011 to 2014. Propensity score matching was used to generate 2 matched cohorts for TAVI and SAVR and outcomes were compared using logistic regressions. A total of 36,786 patients were diagnosed with PH and had an intervention for aortic valve stenosis. Twenty six percent underwent TAVI (n = 9,560) and 74% underwent SAVR (n = 27,225). Patients in the TAVI group were older (81.0 vs 68.5, p <0.001) had more women (53.2% vs 45.4%) and less African-American patients (4.6% vs 8.3%; p <0.001 for both). Although both groups had comparable co-morbidities, the TAVI group had higher prevalence of congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, renal failure, peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, and previous stroke compared with the SAVR group (p ≤0.002). After propensity-score-matching, patients with PH had no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality between for TAVI or SAVR procedures (5.6% vs 4.6%, odds ratio [OR] 1.23, confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.66, p = 0.165). However, TAVI patients were less likely to have cardiac complications (15.4% vs 19.9%, OR 0.73, CI 0.61 to 0.87, p = 0.001) and respiratory complications (12.4% vs 25.1%, OR 0.42, CI 0.35 to 0.51, p <0.001). In conclusion, whereas patient with PH who underwent TAVI and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality, TAVI was associated with lower cardiac, respiratory and bleeding complications compared with SAVR.