The Impact of Frailty on Outcomes of Proximal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis.

(1) Background: This study examines frailty's impact on proximal aortic surgery outcomes. (2) Methods: All patients with a thoracic aortic aneurysm who underwent aortic root, ascending aorta, or arch surgery from the 2016-2017 National Inpatient Sample were included. Frailty was defined by the Adjusted Clinical Groups Frailty Indicator. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality and a composite of death, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and major bleeding (MACE). (3) Results: Among 5745 patients, 405 (7.0%) met frailty criteria. Frail patients were older, with higher rates of chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. There was no difference in in-hospital death (4.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.169); however, the frail group exhibited higher rates of stroke and AKI. Frail patients had a longer length of stay (17 vs. 8 days), and higher rates of non-home discharge (74.1% vs. 54.3%) than non-frail patients (both p < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed increased morbidity and mortality in frail individuals. After adjusting for patient comorbidities and hospital characteristics, frailty independently predicted MACE (OR 4.29 [1.88-9.78], p = 0.001), while age alone did not (OR 1.00 [0.99-1.02], p = 0.568). Urban teaching center status predicted a lower risk of MACE (OR 0.27 [0.08-0.94], p = 0.039). (4) Conclusions: Frailty is associated with increased morbidity in proximal aortic surgery and is a more significant predictor of mortality than age. Coordinated treatment in urban institutions may enhance outcomes for this high-risk group.

Evolving Concept of Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been gaining attention ever since the results of the Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Very Severe Aortic Stenosis (RECOVERY) and Aortic Valve replacement versus conservative treatment in Asymptomatic seveRe aortic stenosis (AVATAR) trials showed survival benefits with early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This study analyzed the long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of SAVR in asymptomatic severe AS. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2020, 272 patients with asymptomatic severe AS and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% underwent SAVR with or without concomitant aortic surgery and met the study criteria. The median follow-up was 8.5 years (interquartile range, 6-12.8 years), for a total of 2584 patient-years. The time course of the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and the average E/E' (ratio of the Doppler-derived E wave to the tissue Doppler-derived E' wave) were assessed using 594 postoperative echocardiograms. The association of preoperative LVMI and average E/E' with survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality. On longitudinal analyses, LVMI improved in patients who presented with moderate or severe preoperative left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). However, after the early decline in average E/E', there was a late increase to greater than upper limit normal, particularly in patients with a preoperative average E/E'≥14. Postoperative survival was 100%, 94%, 84%, and 76% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively, comparable to age- and sex-matched expected survival on the basis of the US general population. On adjusted Cox survival analysis, only moderate to severe LVH was associated with a survival penalty (hazard ratio], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.02-5.27; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with AS, SAVR restores survival and improves LVH, but patients with diastolic dysfunction are left with persistent dysfunction. Presentation with moderate or severe LVH at the time of surgery translated to a survival penalty. This observational study supports early SAVR in this population before development of LVH, although further investigation is needed.

Minimally invasive, surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition to full-sternotomy (FS), recent reports have shown successful minimally-invasive SAVR approaches, including mini-sternotomy (MS) and mini-thoracotomy (MT). This network-meta-analysis (NMA) seeks to provide an outcomes comparison based on these different modalities (MS, MT, TAVR) compared with FS as a reference arm for the management of aortic valve disease. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that compared minimally-invasive SAVR (MS/MT) to conventional FS-SAVR, and/or TAVR. Bayesian NMA was performed using the random effects model. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL). We also assessed long-term mortality at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 27,117 patients (56 studies) were included; 10,397 patients had FS SAVR, 9523 had MS, 5487 had MT, and 1710 had TAVR. Compared to FS, MS was associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.98), stroke (RR, 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97), AKI (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.61-0.94), and long-term mortality (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 10.4 years, while MT showed statistically-significantly higher rates of 30-day PVL (RR, 3.76, 95%CI 1.31-10.85) and major bleeding (RR 1.45; 95%CI 1.08-1.94). TAVR had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day AKI (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.31-0.77), but showed statistically-significantly higher PPM (RR 2.50; 95%CI 1.60-3.91) and 30-day PVL (RR 12.85, 95%CI 5.05-32.68) compared to FS. CONCLUSIONS: MS was protective against 30-day mortality, stroke, AKI, and long-term mortality compared to FS; TAVR showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and PPM but was protective against AKI. Conversely, MT showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and major bleeding. With the emergence of TAVR, the appropriate benchmarks for SAVR comparison in future trials should be the minimally-invasive SAVR approaches to provide clinical equipoise.

Race and Socioeconomic Disparities in Proximal Aortic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Substantial socioeconomics-based disparities exist in cardiac surgery. Although there are robust data for revascularization and valve procedures, the effect of race and socioeconomic status on proximal aortic surgery is not well studied. This study analyzed the impact of race and socioeconomic status on in-hospital outcomes after proximal aortic surgery. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery for aortic dissection or thoracic aneurysm from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample were included. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and in-hospital composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or permanent pacemaker insertion). Adjusted outcomes were assessed with multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A weighted total of 32,895 patients were included; 25,461 (77.4%) classified as White, 3224 (9.8%) Black, 2039 (6.2%) Hispanic, and 2171 (6.6%) other. Black and Hispanic patients had significantly lower median household income, higher proportion of self-pay insurance status, younger age, higher comorbidity burden, and a higher proportion of urgent or emergency procedures compared with White patients. There was no significant difference in observed in-hospital mortality by patient race, but non-White patients had significantly higher composite morbidity. On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality, but non-White race was an independent predictor of in-hospital morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.8; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients of non-White race who undergo proximal aortic surgery have less insurance coverage, more urgent procedures, and a higher comorbidity burden than White patients, disparities that translate to significantly higher morbidity in non-White. A greater focus on nonfatal outcome differentials and improving access to care likely will improve aortic surgery disparities.

Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of reintervention after mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair.

OBJECTIVE: The use of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) is growing substantially, and reintervention after TEER by way of repeat TEER or mitral valve surgery (MVS) is increasing as a result. In this nationally representative study we examined the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of reintervention after index TEER. METHODS: Between July 2013 and November 2017, we reviewed 11,396 patients who underwent index TEER using Medicare beneficiary data. These patients were prospectively tracked and identified as having repeat TEER or MVS. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, 30-day composite morbidity, and cumulative survival. RESULTS: Among 11,396 patients who underwent TEER, 548 patients (4.8%) required reintervention after a median time interval of 4.5 months. Overall 30-day mortality was 8.6%, 30-day readmission was 20.9%, and 30-day composite morbidity was 48.2%. According to reintervention type, 294 (53.7%) patients underwent repeat TEER, and 254 (46.3%) underwent MVS. Patients who underwent MVS were more likely to be younger and female, but had a similar comorbidity burden compared with the repeat TEER cohort. After adjustment, there were no differences in 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.65-2.45]) or 30-day readmission (AOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.72-1.81]). MVS was associated with higher 30-day morbidity (AOR, 4.76 [95% CI, 3.17-7.14]) compared with repeat TEER. Requirement for reintervention was an independent risk factor for long-term mortality in a Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratio, 3.26 [95% CI, 2.53-4.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention after index TEER is a high-risk procedure that carries a significant mortality burden. This highlights the importance of ensuring procedural success for index TEER to avoid the morbidity of reintervention altogether.

All-cause procedural readmissions following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Objective: With expanding eligibility criteria, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is being performed on patients with longer life expectancy, and subsequent procedures after index transcatheter aortic valve replacement are inevitable. This study examines the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent procedural readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: All patients who underwent index transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were discharged alive from January 2012 to December 2019 at a single institution were evaluated. Study end points were mortality and readmission for procedure with more than 1-day hospital stay. Effect on survival was evaluated by treating procedural readmission as a time-dependent variable by Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk analysis. Results: A total of 1092 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up time of 34 months. A total of 218 patients (20.0%) had 244 subsequent procedural readmissions. During the 244 procedural readmissions, there were 260 procedures; 96 (36.9%) were cardiac (most commonly pacemaker implantation, percutaneous coronary interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacements), and 164 (63.1%) were noncardiac (most commonly orthopedic and gastrointestinal procedures). The overall procedural readmission rates were 32%, 39%, and 42%, and all-cause mortality was 27%, 44%, and 54% at 20, 40, and 60 months, respectively. Procedural readmissions were not associated with a survival penalty in any surgical risk group or on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.25; 0.91-1.64, P = .17). Conclusions: After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, procedural interventions are seen frequently, with most procedures occurring within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, subsequent procedural readmissions do not appear to have a survival penalty for patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. After transcatheter aortic valve replacement with resolution of aortic stenosis, subsequent procedures can and should be pursued if they are needed.

Benchmarking Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves.

BACKGROUND: The relative roles for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis are debated. This study analyzes the 5-year longitudinal outcomes of isolated SAVR in bicuspid vs tricuspid AV patients, particularly in low-risk patients. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated index SAVR at 1146 United States hospitals in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac database between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, with linkage to Medicare claims, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 65,687 patients were analyzed, including of 9131 bicuspid patients (13.9%). Compared with tricuspid patients, bicuspid patients were significantly younger (median 70 vs 74 years, P < .001) with lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality scores (mean 1.6% vs 2.3%, P < .001) and lower risk profile. Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and major morbidity were similar, but risk-adjusted 5-year mortality was significantly lower in the bicuspid patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77), specifically in low-risk patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.76). Additionally, the bicuspid cohort had a lower 5-year readmission risk of heart failure, stroke, bleeding, or other cardiovascular causes (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative study, 30-day mortality was similar, but risk-adjusted 5-year mortality was significantly lower in bicuspid patients undergoing isolated SAVR compared with tricuspid patients, specifically low-risk and normal left ventricular ejection fraction patients. This analysis provides a much-needed 5-year longitudinal national-level benchmark to better inform the discussion of transcatheter vs SAVR in bicuspid patients.

Comparison of Postdischarge Outcomes Between Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement.

Limited data are available comparing the postdischarge perioperative outcomes of isolated valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (VIV-TMVR) versus surgical reoperative mitral valve replacement (re-SMVR) on a nationwide scale. The objective of this study was to perform a robust head-to-head assessment of contemporary postdischarge outcomes between isolated VIV-TMVR and re-SMVR using a large national multicenter longitudinal database. Adult patients aged ≥18 years with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves who underwent either isolated VIV-TMVR or re-SMVR were identified in the 2015 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The risk-adjusted differences in 30-, 90-, and 180-day outcomes were compared using propensity score weighting with overlap weights to mimic the results of a randomized controlled trial. The differences between a transeptal and transapical VIV-TMVR approach were also compared. A total of 687 patients with VIV-TMVR and 2,047 patients with re-SMVR were included. After the overlap weighting to attain balance between treatment groups, VIV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower major morbidity within 30 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.0.31 [0.22 to 0.46]), 90 (0.34 [0.23 to 0.50]), and 180 (0.35 [0.24 to 0.51]) days. The differences in major morbidity were primarily driven by less major bleeding (0.20 [0.14 to 0.30]), new onset complete heart block (0.48 [0.28 to 0.84]) and need for permanent pacemaker placement (0.26 [0.12 to 0.55]). The differences in renal failure and stroke were not significant. VIV-TMVR was also associated with shorter index hospital stays (median difference [95% CI] -7.0 [4.9 to 9.1] days) and an increased ability for patients to be discharged home (odds ratio [95% CI] 3.35 [2.37 to 4.72]). There were no significant differences in total hospital costs; in-hospital or 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality; or readmission. The findings remained similar when stratifying the VIV-TMVR access using a transeptal versus a transapical approach. The changes in outcomes over time suggest marked improvements for patients with VIV-TMVR relative to stagnant results for patients with re-SMVR from 2015 to 2019. In this large nationally representative cohort of patients with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, VIV-TMVR appears to confer a short-term advantage over re-SMVR in terms of morbidity, discharge home, and length of stay. It yielded equivalent outcomes for mortality and readmission. Longer-term studies are needed to assess further follow-up beyond 180 days.

Outcomes of Mitral Valve Repair Among High- and Low-Volume Surgeons Within a High-Volume Institution.

BACKGROUND: Volume-outcome relationships have been described for mitral valve repair at the institution and surgeon level. We aimed to assess whether this relationship is mitigated at high-volume (HV) mitral repair centers between HV and low-volume (LV) surgeons. METHODS: All mitral repair cases at an HV mitral center (mean, 192 annual repairs) from 1992 to 2018 were considered. Cases with concomitant procedures other than tricuspid and atrial fibrillation procedures were excluded. Surgeons who performed ≥25 repairs per year were considered HV. The primary outcome was operative mortality; secondary outcomes were operative complications, long-term mortality, and reoperation. RESULTS: In total, 2653 mitral repairs from 19 surgeons were included. The mean age of the patients in the HV and LV groups was 59.6 years and 61.8 years, respectively (P = .005), with no difference in other baseline characteristics. HV surgeons had significantly shorter median aortic cross-clamp times (80 vs 87 minutes; P < .001) compared with LV surgeons; however, there was no significant difference in operative mortality (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = .19), reoperation, perioperative complications, or length of stay. LV surgeons had higher repair conversion to replacement than HV surgeons did (9.0% vs 3.4%; P < .001). In the risk-adjusted analyses, surgeon volume group did not have an impact on longitudinal survival or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: At an HV mitral repair institution, LV surgeons appear to have short- and long-term outcomes similar to those of HV surgeons despite increased conversion rates. These findings suggest that institutional volume may mitigate the surgeon volume outcome. However, complex repairs may benefit from referral to HV surgeons, given the lower conversion rate.

Postdischarge Pain and Opioid Use After Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The rate of chronic opioid use after cardiac surgery is high compared with other surgical specialties; however evidence regarding optimal prescribing is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patterns of opioid consumption after cardiac surgery to guide prescribing practices. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing sternotomy-based cardiac operations were considered for enrollment. Patients with opioid use within 3 months of surgery and those discharged to a nonhome facility were excluded. A patient diary and researcher-directed pill count was used to track pain and opioid use for 10 days after discharge. RESULTS: One hundred four patients were included in the final analysis. Of the 63 patients discharged with an opioid, 22 (34.9%) used none and 12 (19.0%) used fewer than half of the pills prescribed. Overall, pain and opioid consumption decreased significantly throughout the discharge period (P < .001). In those who used opioids after discharge, median total consumption was 64 morphine milligram equivalents (interquartile range, 38-128), or the equivalent of 9 oxycodone 5-mg tablets. Patients who used opioids were younger (60.9 vs 70.0, P < .001), but there were no differences based on sex, history of substance use, smoking, or procedure. After risk adjustment the mean pain score ≥ 3 on the day of discharge was predictive of opioid use (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-4.8; P < .001). Most patients (88.5%) were satisfied or very satisfied with pain management. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of all patients used opioids after discharge in this study. These data support the need for the development of prescription recommendations after cardiac surgery.

Impact of reintervention after index aortic valve replacement on the risk of subsequent mortality.

Objectives: The use of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is inherently associated with a risk of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and the need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention. We sought to evaluate whether AV reintervention, in the form of repeat surgical AVR (SAVR) or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), negatively affects patients' subsequent long-term survival after index SAVR. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone bioprosthetic SAVR from 2002 to 2017 at our institution. Median longitudinal follow-up after index SAVR was 7.3 years (10.9 years for those with and 7.2 years for those without AV reintervention), and median follow-up after AV reintervention was 1.9 years. Cox regression analyses using AV reintervention (re-SAVR and ViV-TAVR) as a time-varying covariate were used to determine the impact of reintervention on subsequent survival. Results: Of 4167 patients who underwent index SAVR, 139 (3.3%) required AV reintervention for SVD, with re-SAVR being performed in 65 and ViV-TAVR in 74. Median age at the index SAVR was 73 years (interquartile range, 64-79 years), and 2541 (61%) were male. Overall, there were total of 1171 mortalities observed, of which 13 occurred after re-SAVR and 9 after ViV-TAVR. AV reintervention was associated with a greater risk of subsequent mortality compared with those patients who did not require AV reintervention (hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.88, P < .001). This increased risk of subsequent mortality was more pronounced for those who received their index AVR when <65 years of age (hazard ratio, 5.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.57-12.22, P < .001) versus those ≥65 years (2.06, 1.21-3.52, P = .008). Direct comparison of survival between those who underwent re-SAVR versus ViV-TAVR showed 5-year survival to be comparable (re-SAVR: 74% vs ViV-TAVR: 80%, P = .67). Conclusions: Among patients receiving bioprosthetic AVR, an AV reintervention for SVD is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality, regardless of re-SAVR or ViV-TAVR, and this risk is greater among younger patients. These findings should be balanced with individual preferences at index AVR in the context of patients' lifetime management of aortic stenosis.

The Effect of Psychosocial Risk Factors on Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) have emerged as important nontraditional risk factors that are associated with worse surgical outcomes but have not been well-characterized in valvular disease. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the impact of PSRFs on 30-day outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: All adult patients (≥18 years of age) who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR in the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2016 to 2018 were included. Patients were classified as having 0 PSRFs vs ≥1 PSRF. PSRFs included limited cognitive understanding, substance use, psychiatric disease, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured status. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, pacemaker implantation, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, or new atrial fibrillation). RESULTS: A nationally weighted total of 74,763 SAVR and 87,142 TAVR patients met inclusion criteria. For SAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 3.7%; P = 0.048) and readmissions (13.1% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001), but there was no difference in composite morbidity. For TAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day readmission (11.7% vs 10.7%; P = 0.012) but no difference in 30-day mortality or composite morbidity. On risk-adjusted analysis, presence of PSRFs was a significant predictor of higher 30-day readmissions following SAVR (adjusted OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PSRFs is associated with worse short-term outcomes following SAVR and TAVR, with a more profound impact in SAVR. This study highlights the importance of identifying at-risk patients and suggests that TAVR may be beneficial in patients with less social support.

Observed versus expected morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing mitral valve repair.

OBJECTIVES: Mitral valve repair (MVP) is the gold standard treatment for degenerative mitral regurgitation. With the expansion of transcatheter technologies, this study compares the outcome of MVP in low-risk and non-low-risk patients to serve as a benchmark. METHODS: This retrospective, single-institution study examined all patients who underwent MVP for primary mitral regurgitation from 2005 to 2018. Patients were stratified into 2 risk categories: low-risk [Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) ≤2%] and non-low risk (STS-PROM > 2% or age > 75), with a subgroup of very low risk (STS-PROM ≤1%, age <75). RESULTS: A total of 1207 patients were included, and 1053 patients were classified as low risk and 154 as non-low risk. The non-low-risk group was significantly older, more likely to be female, and had a higher comorbidity burden than the low-risk group (all P < 0.01). For the low-risk group, the observed-to-expected (O:E) STS mortality ratio was 0.4 and the composite morbidity and mortality ratio was 0.6, whereas for the non-low risk, the O:E mortality was 1.5 and the composite morbidity and mortality was 0.9. When the subgroup of very low-risk group was assessed, the mortality O:E ratio was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed composite morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing MVP were persistently lower in low-risk patients, mainly driven by the very low-risk group. The excellent outcome of MVP in low-risk patients should be validated on a national level to determine how transcatheter technologies can be utilized in these patients.

Aortic root management in acute type A aortic dissection: A nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening condition and surgical repair often includes aortic valve replacement (AVR). Aortic valve repair (AVr) is increasingly being reported with favorable outcomes from single-center experiences. This study examined national trends and outcomes of AVr in patients with ATAAD. METHODS: Adults with a primary diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection who underwent proximal aortic surgery from January 2016 to December 2017 were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were stratified into an isolated aortic surgery group (no aortic valve procedure), concomitant AVR, or concomitant AVr groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included stroke, acute kidney injury, heart block, and bleeding. Propensity score matching was used to address patient and hospital-level confounders between AVR and AVr groups. RESULTS: In total, 5115 patients underwent surgery for ATAAD and were included. Overall, 3220 (63%) underwent isolated ATAAD repair, while 1120 (22%) had concomitant AVR, and 775 (15%) had concomitant AVr. In 455 propensity-matched pairs, there was no difference in mortality or stroke between AVr and AVR groups, however, heart block (1.1% vs. 7.5%, p < .001) and bleeding (65.9% vs. 81.3%, p < .001) were significantly less common among those who underwent AVr. Patients who underwent AVr had shortest LOS (11.9 vs. 13.5 days, p < .001). There were no differences in outcomes of AVr in ATAAD based on hospital size or teaching status. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, AVr is being performed safely in the setting of ATAAD with mortality and composite outcomes comparable to AVR.

National outcomes following benign cardiac tumor resection: A critical sex-based disparity.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of benign primary cardiac tumors involves surgical resection, but reported outcomes from multi-institutional or national databases are scarce. This study examines contemporary national outcomes following surgical resection of benign primary atrial and ventricular tumors. METHODS: The 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for all patients ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of benign neoplasm of the heart who underwent resection of the atria, ventricles, or atrial/ventricular septum. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, readmission, and composite morbidity (defined as stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, bleeding complication, or acute kidney injury). Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent predictors of worse outcomes. RESULTS: A weighted total of 2557 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 61 years, 67.9% were female, and patients had relatively low comorbidity burdens (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.39). The majority of patients underwent excision of the left atrium (71.5%), followed by the intra-atrial septum (26.6%), right atrium (2.9%). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (2.1% vs. 1.3%, p = .550), 30-day readmission (7.0% vs. 9.1%, p = .222), or 30-day composite morbidity (56.8% vs. 53.8%, p = .369) between females and males, respectively. However, on multivariable analysis, female sex was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 2.65, p = .028). Tumor location (atria, ventricles, septum) was not predictive of mortality. CONCLUSION: Benign atrial and ventricular tumors are uncommon, but disproportionately impact female patients, with female sex being an independent predictor of 30-day mortality. Root-cause analysis is necessary to determine the ultimate cause of this disparity.

Contemporary socioeconomic-based disparities in cardiac surgery: Are we closing the disparities gap?

OBJECTIVE: Female sex and lower income residence location are associated with worse health care outcomes. In this study we analyzed the national, contemporary status of socioeconomic disparities in cardiac surgery. METHODS: Adult patients within the Nationwide Readmissions Database who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), mitral valve (MV) replacement, MV repair, or ascending aorta surgery from 2016 to 2018 were included. Sex and median household income quartile (MHIQ) were compared within each surgery group. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariable analysis was adjusted for patient characteristics and hospital-level factors. RESULTS: A weighted total of 358,762 patients were included. Fewer women underwent CABG (22.3%), SAVR (32.2%), MV repair (37.5%), and ascending aorta surgery (29.7%). In adjusted analysis, female sex was independently associated with higher 30-day mortality rates after CABG (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.6), SAVR (aOR, 1.4), MV repair (aOR, 1.8), and ascending aorta surgery (aOR, 1.2; all P < .03). The lowest MHIQ was independently associated with higher 30-day mortality rates after CABG (aOR, 1.4), SAVR (aOR, 1.5), MV replacement (aOR, 1.3), and ascending aorta surgery (aOR, 1.8; all P < .004) compared with the highest quartile. Women were less likely to receive care at urban and academic hospitals for CABG compared with men. Patients of lower MHIQ received less care at urban and academic institutions for all surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in the techniques and safety, women and patients of lower socioeconomic status continue to have worse outcomes after cardiac surgery. These persistent disparities warrant the need for root cause analysis.

Marital Status and Sex-Based Differences in Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Studies have shown improved outcomes among married patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery; however, this has not been well studied in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVi). We examined the impact of marital status and patient sex on outcomes after TAVi. Patients who underwent TAVi from January 2015 to June 2018 were reviewed and stratified into 3 groups: single, married, and widowed. The impact of marital status and sex on 30-day outcomes was assessed using a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Cumulative survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted survival with multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. A total of 785 patients were included: 149 single, 413 married, and 223 widowed. Widowed patients were older (84 vs 79 years) with higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores (6.79% vs 5.51%, both p ≤0.001) than married patients. Neither marital status nor sex was associated with 30-day mortality or home discharge. However, 1-year survival revealed a differential survival penalty, with married females (p = 0.041) having lower survival and married males (p = 0.007) having higher survival than their single counterparts. This survival penalty persisted in the adjusted analyses (married females hazard ratio [HR] 2.24, p = 0.009; widowed males HR 2.42, p = 0.057). For patients who were readmitted in the first year, adjusted analysis showed widowed status was associated with higher 30-day readmissions (HR 1.91, p = 0.012) in both sexes. In conclusion, these findings suggest that marital status does not impact both sexes equally after TAVi; identifying at-risk patients and targeted interventions, such as adjusting discharge planning to ensure adequate home social support, may help improve outcomes.