Outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Minimally invasive strategy versus conventional strategy.
Female; Humans; Male; Aged; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Prognosis; Cohort Studies; Severity of Illness Index; Aged 80 and over; Logistic Models; Survival Rate; Length of Stay; Multivariate Analysis; Risk Assessment; Reference Values; Hospital Mortality; aortic stenosis; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; heart failure; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods/mortality; anesthesia; conscious sedation; Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging/epidemiology/therapy; Cardiac Catheterization/methods; Cardiac Output Low/diagnostic imaging; Conscious Sedation/methods; Echocardiography Transesophageal/methods; Heart Failure/diagnosis/epidemiology/therapy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods; Surgery Computer-Assisted/methods
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of TAVR technique on in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced ejection fraction (EF). BACKGROUND: Patients with AS and concomitant low EF may be at risk for adverse hemodynamic effects from general anesthesia utilized in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) via the conventional strategy (CS). These patients may be better suited for the minimally invasive strategy (MIS), which employs conscious sedation. However, data are lacking that compare MIS to CS in patients with AS and concomitant low EF. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified all patients with low EF (<50%) undergoing transfemoral MIS-TAVR vs CS-TAVR between March 2011 and May 2018. Our primary endpoint was defined as the composite of in-hospital mortality and major periprocedural bleeding or vascular complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy patients had EF <50%, while 154 patients had EF ≤35%. Overall, a total of 236 patients were in the MIS group and 34 were in the CS group. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar except for Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (MIS 8.4 ± 5.1 vs CS 11.7 ± 6.8; P<.01). There were no differences between the two groups in incidence of the primary endpoint (MIS 5.5% vs CS 8.8%; odds ratio for MIS, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-2.23; P=.45). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS and reduced EF, MIS was not associated with adverse in-hospital or 30-day clinical outcomes compared with CS. In these patients, MIS may be a suitable alternative to CS without compromising clinical outcomes.
Panhwar MS; Li J; Zidar DA; Clevenger J; Lipinski J; Patel TR; Karim A; Saric P; Patel SM; Kalra A; Attizzani GF
The Journal of invasive cardiology
2019
2019-03
Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>
PMID: 30555054
Feasibility and safety of adopting next-day discharge as first-line option after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Female; Humans; Male; Aged; Retrospective Studies; Cohort Studies; Follow-Up Studies; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; United States; Aged 80 and over; Survival Analysis; Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data; Propensity Score; Ohio; Academic Medical Centers; Risk Assessment; Feasibility Studies; Patient Discharge; aortic stenosis; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; Length of Stay; early discharge; minimalist approach; next-day discharge; Patient Safety; Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnosis/surgery; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods/mortality
OBJECTIVES: Data on next-day discharge (NDD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited. This study investigated the feasibility and safety of NDD as a first-line option (the very-early discharge [VED] strategy) compared with the early-discharge (ED) strategy (2-3 days as a first-line option) after TAVR. METHODS: We reviewed 611 consecutive patients who had minimalist TAVR (transfemoral approach under conscious sedation) and no in-hospital mortality; a total of 418 patients underwent ED strategy (since December 2013) and 193 patients underwent VED strategy (as part of a hospital initiative to reduce length of stay, since August 2016). NDD in the VED strategy was performed with heart team consensus in patients without significant complications. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality/rehospitalization. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (33.7%) in the VED strategy and 10 patients (2.4%) in the ED strategy were discharged the next day (P<.001). NDD patients had received balloon-expandable (n = 30) or self-expanding valves (n = 45) and showed a similar primary outcome rate compared with non-NDD patients. After adjustment using propensity score matching (172 pairs), post-TAVR length of stay was significantly shorter in the VED group (3.2 ± 3.1 days) than in the ED group (3.5 ± 2.7 days; P<.01). The primary outcome did not differ between the two groups (7.0% vs 11.6%; P=.14), with comparable 30-day mortality rate (1.2% vs 2.3%; P=.68) and rehospitalization rate (5.8% vs 11.1%; P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of NDD as a first-line option after minimalist TAVR is feasible and safe, and leads to further reduction in length of stay compared with an ED strategy.
Ichibori Y; Li J; Davis A; Patel TM; Lipinski J; Panhwar M; Saric P; Qureshi G; Patel SM; Sareyyupoglu B; Markowitz AH; Bezerra HG; Costa MA; Zidar DA; Kalra A; Attizzani GF
The Journal of invasive cardiology
2019
2019-03
© 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>
PMID: 30819977