Objective

Even in high-risk trials pertaining to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) have been under-represented. We sought to study this population group from a large national United States population database.

Methods

We used National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from January 2005 to August 2015. Patients with ESLD were extracted using Goldberg's algorithm. Propensity match analysis was done for comparative analysis between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR groups. Logistic regression analysis was used for predictors of in-hospital mortality.

Results

Out of 309,959 ESLD patients, 1,375 underwent aortic valve replacement and 1,199 patients were included in our study. Mean age was 66.1 (SD, 9.1) years. In matched data, the in-hospital mortality was 5.5% in TAVR group when compared to 19.4% in SAVR group. Ventilator use (16.1 vs. 27.2%, p < .01), tracheostomy (<4 vs. 7.2%, p < .01), and vasopressin use (0 vs. 7.4%, p < .01) were utilized less in TAVR group as compared to SAVR group. The proportion of TAVR has increased from almost zero in 2011 to 51.3% in 2015. Mean cost for hospital stay has increased in SAVR group (from 254,427$ in 2005 to 321,791$ in 2015, p < .01). Similarly, a large decrease in length of stay has been observed for TAVR group (14.5 days in 2011 to 5.4 days in 2015, p < .01). TAVR (odds ratios [OR]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.87, p = .02) was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

TAVR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization in high-risk ESLD patients.

Objective

To compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with pure aortic insufficiency (PAI).

Background

The treatment of choice for patients with severe symptomatic PAI is SAVR. However, not all patients are candidates for surgery because of comorbidities or are deemed high risk for surgery. As a result, TAVR is being used as an off-label procedure in some patients with PAI.

Patients and methods

We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample database from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Inclusion criteria were patients with aortic valve insufficiency undergoing either TAVR or SAVR. Patients with concomitant aortic stenosis, or history of infective endocarditis, and those below the age of 18 years were excluded.

Results

A total of 14,720 patients with PAI underwent valve replacement. Of those, 6.2% underwent TAVR. The TAVR group was significantly older (median age 78 years vs 64 years; P <.001). There was no evidence of a difference in in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups. However, after adjustment, patients in the TAVR group were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, postoperative respiratory complications, and length of stay. On the other hand, those in the SAVR group were less likely to need permanent pacemakers.

Conclusion

There was no evidence of a significant statistical difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with PAI treated by either SAVR or TAVR, both in unmatched and propensity-matched cohorts. TAVR could be considered for patients with PAI who are not candidates for surgery.