Savings associated with surgical aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA tissue valve based on seven-year COMMENCE trial results.

BACKGROUND: Bioprostheses with RESILIA tissue demonstrate a reduction in calcification and improve health outcomes in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Prior economic analyses which relied on 5 years of evidence from the COMMENCE trial demonstrate financial savings for RESILIA tissue valves relative to mechanical valves after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Given the recent release of 7-year COMMENCE data, this economic evaluation updates the estimate for long-run savings of bioprosthetic valves with RESILIA. METHODS: Simulation models estimated disease progression across two hypothetical SAVR cohorts (tissue vs. mechanical) of 10,000 patients each in the US. The primary comparison calculated the SAVR-related expenditures associated with each valve type ($US, 2023). Health outcome probabilities were based on the COMMENCE trial though year 7 and projected for an additional 8 years based on prior studies of tissue and mechanical SAVR. Costs for key outcomes (mortality, reoperation, bleeding, thromboembolism, endocarditis) and anticoagulant monitoring were sourced from the literature. Incidence rates of health outcomes associated with mechanical valves relied on relative risks of tissue valve versus mechanical valve patients. RESULTS: Seven-year savings are $13,415 (95% CI = $10,472-$17,321) per patient when comparing RESILIA versus mechanical SAVR. Projected 15-year savings were $23,001 ($US, 2023; 95% CI = $17,802-$30,421). Most of the 15-year savings are primarily attributed to lower anti-coagulation monitoring costs ($21,073 in ACM savings over 15 years), but lower bleeding cost (savings: $2,294) and thromboembolism-related expenditures (savings: $852) also contribute. Reoperation and endocarditis expenditures were slightly larger in the RESILIA cohort. If reoperation relative risk reverts from 1.1 to 2.2 (the level in legacy tissue valves) after year 7, savings are $18,064. RESILIA SAVR also reduce costs relative to legacy tissue valves. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving RESILIA tissue valves are projected to have lower SAVR-related health expenditures relative to mechanical and legacy tissue valves.

3-Year Outcomes for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation Repair in a Medicare Population.

OBJECTIVE: Mitral valve repair (MVr) has become the standard therapy for degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR), but real-world late mortality, reintervention, and readmission data are lacking. This study estimates MVr outcomes for DMR to 3 years in the Medicare fee-for-service population. METHODS: There were 4,219 DMR patients older than 65 years undergoing MVr within the Medicare 100% standard analytic file from October 2015 to December 2018 who were evaluated. Outcomes were analyzed for isolated MVr patients (n = 2,433) and patients undergoing MVr with certain concomitant procedures: MVr + tricuspid valve surgery (TVS; n = 619), MVr + cardiac ablation (CA; n = 540), and MVr + left atrial appendage closure (n = 627). Outcomes over a 3-year period included all-cause mortality, reintervention, rehospitalization, and common complications. All outcomes were modeled with adjustments for patient demographics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: The average age for all patients was 71.9 ± 5.2 years. Adjusted all-cause mortality and MV reintervention (surgery or transcatheter) at 3 years for the primary cohort of isolated MVr was 3.5% and 1.6%, respectively. Directionally higher mortality at 3 years was observed in patients with concomitant TVS or CA. All-cause readmission and cardiac readmission for isolated MVr was 37.0% and 14.1%, with the highest rates for those with concomitant TVS or CA. Acute kidney injury and stroke/transient ischemic attack were the most common adverse events over 3 years for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year mortality and reintervention rates in Medicare patients undergoing degenerative MVr are low. Those undergoing concomitant TVS or CA had directionally higher mortality and cardiac readmission rates. These results help refine outcome benchmarks as new transcatheter MVr procedures continue to emerge.

Pacemaker implantation after concomitant tricuspid valve repair in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: Results from the Mini-Mitral International Registry.

Objective: Randomized evidence suggests a high risk of pacemaker implantation for patients undergoing mitral valve (MV) surgery with concomitant tricuspid valve repair (cTVR). We investigated the impact of cTVR on outcomes in the Mini-Mitral International Registry. Methods: From 2015 to 2021, 7513 patients underwent minimally invasive MV with or without cTVR in 17 international centers (MV: n = 5609, cTVR: n = 1113). Propensity matching generated 1110 well-balanced pairs. Multivariable analysis was applied. Results: Patients with cTVR were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching eliminated most differences except for more TR in patients who underwent cTVR (77.2% vs 22.1% MV, P < .001). Mean matched age was 71 years, and 45% were male. European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was still 2.68% (interquartile range [IQR], 0.80-2.63) vs 1.9% (IQR, 1.12-3.9) in matched MV (P < .001). MV replacement (30%) and atrial fibrillation surgery (32%) were similar in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass (161 minutes [IQR, 133-203] vs MV: 130 minutes [IQR, 103-166]; P < .001) and crossclamp times (93 minutes [IQR, 66-123] vs MV: 83 minutes [IQR, 64-107]; P < .001) were longer with cTVR. Although in-hospital mortality was similar (cTVR: 3.3% vs MV: 2.2%; P = .5), postoperative pacemaker implantations (9% vs MV: 5.8%; P = .02), low cardiac output syndrome (7.7% vs MV: 4.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (13.8% vs MV: 10%; P = .01) were more frequent with cTVR. cTVR eliminated relevant TR in most patients (greater-than-moderate TR: 6.8%). Multivariable analysis identified MV replacement, atrial fibrillation, and cTVR as risk factors of postoperative pacemaker implantation. Conclusions: cTVR in minimally invasive MV surgery is an independent risk factor for pacemaker implantation in this international registry. It is also associated with more bleeding, low output syndrome, and acute kidney injury. It remains unclear whether technical or patient factors (or both) explain these differences.

Impact of transcatheter heart valve type on outcomes of surgical explantation after failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the impact of transcatheter heart valve (THV) type on the outcomes of surgical explantation after THV failure. AIMS: We sought to determine the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation for failed balloon-expandable valves (BEV) versus self-expanding valves (SEV). METHODS: From November 2009 to February 2022, 401 patients across 42 centres in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry underwent TAVR explantation during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Mechanically expandable valves (N=10, 2.5%) were excluded. The outcomes of TAVR explantation were compared for 202 (51.7%) failed BEV and 189 (48.3%) failed SEV. RESULTS: Among 391 patients analysed (mean age: 73.0±9.8 years; 33.8% female), the median time from index TAVR to TAVR explantation was 13.3 months (interquartile range 5.1-34.8), with no differences between groups. Indications for TAVR explantation included endocarditis (36.0% failed SEV vs 55.4% failed BEV; p<0.001), paravalvular leak (21.2% vs 11.9%; p=0.014), structural valve deterioration (30.2% vs 21.8%; p=0.065) and prosthesis-patient mismatch (8.5% vs 10.4%; p=0.61). The SEV group trended fewer urgent/emergency surgeries (52.0% vs 62.3%; p=0.057) and more root replacement (15.3% vs 7.4%; p=0.016). Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 57.8% of patients, including coronary artery bypass graft (24.8%), and mitral (38.9%) and tricuspid (14.6%) valve surgery, with no differences between groups. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality and stroke rates were similar between groups (allp>0.05), with no differences in cumulative mortality at 3 years (log-rank p=0.95). On multivariable analysis, concomitant mitral surgery was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality after BEV explant (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-3.72) and SEV explant (HR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.08-3.69). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPLANT-TAVR global registry, BEV and SEV groups had different indications for surgical explantation, with more root replacements in SEV failure, but no differences in midterm mortality and morbidities. Further refinement of TAVR explantation techniques are important to improving outcomes.