Aortic Dissections in the Elderly: Older Age in Patients With Acute Aortic Syndromes Is Associated With Delayed Time to Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In the setting of acute aortic syndromes, timely access to definitive surgical repair is of paramount importance. Older patients, primarily septuagenarians and octogenarians, undergoing emergent ascending arch repair experience higher rates of mortality compared to younger patients. Despite this risk, studies show that surgical management is still superior to medical management for this patient population. The objective of this study is to determine if older age impacts the time from presentation to the start of surgery for patients with acute aortic syndromes undergoing surgical repair. METHODS: This retrospective review included all patients with acute aortic syndromes who underwent emergent ascending aortic arch repair from January 2018 to May 2023 at a single academic institution. Our analysis compared outcomes for older patients (age 70 years and older) with younger patients (age less than 70 years). Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, postoperative stay, time from emergency department presentation to the start of surgery, and time from diagnosis with computed tomography to the start of surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-squared and Student's t-tests, with significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Of 107 patients included (male, N=57), 71 (66%) were under the age of 70 and 36 (34%) were 70 years of age or older. The younger cohort had more male and non-White patients, with no differences in rates of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking history. With no difference in the rate of transfers from outside hospitals, we observed longer times from presentation to the start of surgery for older patients compared to younger patients (7 hours and 13 minutes vs. 6 hours 25 minutes; p=0.02) and also for time of diagnosis to the start of surgery (4 hours 22 minutes vs. 3 hours 54 minutes; p=0.006). Older patients had higher rates of intraoperative (0% vs. 17%, p<0.001) and 30-day (7% vs. 44%, p<0.001) mortality. There were no differences in length of stay or in rates of postoperative complications and surgery-related emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 70 and older experienced delays from the time of presentation to the start of surgery and from time of diagnosis to the start of surgery. Age should not delay an individual from receiving timely transfer to a tertiary center for a higher level of care to better assess the patient's operative candidacy and determine appropriate treatment.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the value of increasing treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: a plain language summary.

What is this summary about?This article summarizes an economic evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS). SSAS occurs when the aortic valve, which allows blood to leave the heart, becomes very narrow. This reduces blood flow to the body, causing symptoms like tiredness, chest pain, dizziness, or fainting. Treating SSAS requires replacing the valve. Untreated SSAS results in heart failure and death.Before TAVR, SSAS patients had two options, medical management and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Medical management helps with symptoms but does not replace the valve, leading patients to eventually die from SSAS. SAVR replaces the valve through open-heart surgery, which is invasive, involving making a large cut through the chest bone. Concerns about this invasiveness led many patients to avoid SAVR, leaving their SSAS untreated. TAVR was introduced in 2010. It is less invasive than SAVR, involving inserting a new valve through a small cut in the leg. TAVR has become popular and twice as many patients now undergo TAVR compared to SAVR.We measure TAVR's net benefits as the value of its health benefits minus its healthcare costs. We measure these net benefits in three patient groups aged 65 and above in the United States. Group 1 patients are ineligible for SAVR, so TAVR is their only treatment option. Group 2 patients would have received SAVR if TAVR were not available. Group 3 patients are eligible for SAVR but concerned about its invasiveness, and so would have stayed untreated without TAVR.[Box: see text]What were the key takeaways?Net benefits per patient are significant in all groups, roughly equal in groups 1 and 2, and over six times larger in group 3. When net benefits are added up across patients, group 3's total net benefit is 30 times larger than that of groups 1 and 2 combined.What are the main conclusions?Past studies ignored TAVR's value in helping treat patients who might go untreated because of concerns over SAVR's invasiveness. But this is TAVR's largest value to SSAS patients. Our findings support continuing and increasing access to TAVR among SSAS patients, especially those who may go untreated because of concerns about invasive treatment.[Box: see text][Box: see text]Link to original article here.

Machine Learning Identification of Modifiable Predictors of Patient Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is important to identify predictors of excellent outcomes (good clinical outcomes, more time spent at home) after TAVR that are potentially amenable to improvement. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to use machine learning to identify potentially modifiable predictors of clinically relevant patient-centered outcomes after TAVR. Methods: We used data from 8,332 TAVR cases (January 2016-December 2021) from 21 hospitals to train random forest models with 57 patient characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, surgical risk score, lab values, health status scores) and care process parameters to predict the end point, a composite of parameters that designated an excellent outcome and included no major complications (in-hospital or at 30 days), post-TAVR length of stay of 1 day or less, discharge to home, no readmission, and alive at 30 days. We used recursive feature elimination with cross-validation and Shapley Additive Explanation feature importance to identify parameters with the highest predictive values. Results: The final random forest model retained 29 predictors (15 patient characteristics and 14 care process components); the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.77, 0.67, and 0.73, respectively. Four potentially modifiable predictors with relatively high Shapley Additive Explanation values were identified: type of anesthesia, direct movement to stepdown unit post-TAVR, time between catheterization and TAVR, and preprocedural length of stay. Conclusions: This study identified four potentially modifiable predictors of excellent outcome after TAVR, suggesting that machine learning combined with hospital-level data can inform modifiable components of care, which could support better delivery of care for patients undergoing TAVR.

Socioeconomic status as a predictor of post-operative mortality and outcomes in carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy.

Background: The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and worse surgical outcomes has become an emerging area of interest. Literature has demonstrated that carotid artery stenting (CAS) poses greater risk of postoperative complications, particularly stroke, than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study aims to compare the impact of low SES on patients undergoing CAS vs. CEA. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patients undergoing CAS and CEA from 2010 to 2015. Patients were stratified by highest and lowest median income quartiles by zip code and compared through demographics, hospital characteristics, and comorbidities defined by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI), post-operative stroke, sepsis, and bleeding requiring reoperation.Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of SES on outcomes. Results: Five thousand four hundred twenty-five patients underwent CAS (Low SES: 3,516 (64.8%); High SES: 1,909 (35.2%) and 38,399 patients underwent CEA (Low SES: 22,852 (59.5%); High SES: 15,547 (40.5%). Low SES was a significant independent predictor of mortality [OR = 2.07 (1.25-3.53); p = 0.005] for CEA patients, but not for CAS patients [OR = 1.21 (CI 0.51-2.30); p = 0.68]. Stroke was strongly associated with low SES, CEA patients (Low SES = 1.5% vs. High SES = 1.2%; p = 0.03), while bleeding was with high SES, CAS patients (Low SES = 5.3% vs. High SES = 7.1%; p = 0.01). CCI was a strong predictor of mortality for both procedures [CAS: OR1.45 (1.17-1.80); p < 0.001. CEA: OR1.60 (1.45-1.77); p < 0.001]. Advanced age was a predictor of mortality post-CEA [OR = 1.03 (1.01-1.06); p = 0.01]. While not statistically significant, advanced age and increased mortality trended towards a positive association in CAS [OR = 1.05 (1.00-1.10); p = 0.05]. Conclusions: Low SES is a significant independent predictor of post-operative mortality in patients who underwent CEA, but not CAS. CEA is also associated with higher incidence of stroke in low SES patients. Findings demonstrate the impact of SES on outcomes for patients undergoing carotid revascularization procedures. Prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate this disparity.

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Minimally invasive approach associated with lower resource utilization after aortic and mitral valve surgery.

Objective: To investigate the effect of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) on resource utilization, cost, and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing left-heart valve operations. Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed for patients undergoing single-valve surgery (eg, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, or mitral valve repair) at a single center from 2018 to 2021, stratified by surgical approach: MICS vs full sternotomy (FS). Baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared. Primary outcome was high resource utilization, defined as direct procedure cost higher than the third quartile or either postoperative LOS ≥7 days or 30-day readmission. Secondary outcomes were direct cost, length of stay, 30-day readmission, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, and major morbidity. Multiple regression analysis was conducted, controlling for baseline characteristics, operative approach, valve operation, and lead surgeon to assess high resource utilization. Results: MICS was correlated with a significantly lower rate of high resource utilization (MICS, 31.25% [n = 115] vs FS 61.29% [n = 76]; P < .001). Median postoperative length of stay (MICS, 4 days [range, 3-6 days] vs FS, 6 days [range, 4 to 9 days]; P < .001) and direct cost (MICS, $22,900 [$19,500-$28,600] vs FS, $31,900 [$25,900-$50,000]; P < .001) were lower in the MICS group. FS patients were more likely to experience postoperative atrial fibrillation (P = .040) and renal failure (P = .027). Other outcomes did not differ between groups. Controlling for stratified Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality, cardiac valve operation, and lead surgeon, FS demonstrated increased likelihood of high resource utilization (P < .001). Conclusions: MICS for left-heart valve pathology demonstrated improved postoperative outcomes and resource utilization.

Ambulatory Electrocardiography Monitoring for Early Discharge After Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare outcomes after early discharge in patients with and without predischarge diagnosis of arrhythmia following minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ambulatory electrocardiography (AECG) datasheets and medical records of patients discharged with 14-d AECG monitoring from our facility between October 2019 and March 2022 ≤ 3 d after MIVS. Baseline and clinical characteristics, arrhythmias during AECG monitoring, and 30-d adverse outcomes were reported for the population and stratified by presence or absence of predischarge arrhythmia. RESULTS: Of 41 patients discharged ≤3 d postoperatively of MIVS, 17 (41.5%) experienced predischarge arrhythmias and 24 (58.5%) did not. The population was predominantly male and White with a median age of 62 y [57, 70]. Baseline and clinical characteristics did not differ between subgroups. Most patients (92.7% [n = 38]) experienced one or more tachyarrhythmias during the AECG monitoring period. There were similar proportions of patients experiencing atrial fibrillation in both groups, but patients with predischarge arrhythmias had higher burden of atrial fibrillation on AECG monitoring (27.60% [6.57%, 100%] versus 1.65% [0.76%, 4.32%]; P = 0.004). The predischarge arrhythmia subgroup had higher proportions of patients experiencing nonsustained ventricular tachycardia but lower proportions experiencing supraventricular tachycardia. There were no mortalities within 30 d of surgery. Six (14.6%) patients were readmitted within 30 d with equal proportions of readmissions between subgroups (P = 0.662). CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge timelines and noninvasive monitoring techniques can allow patients to return to their normal activities quicker in the comfort of their own home with no increased risk of morbidity or mortality.

Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography Anatomical Characterization of Patients Screened for a Dedicated Transfemoral Transcatheter Valve System for Primary Aortic Regurgitation.

Background: Cardiac computed tomography angiography was used to identify anatomical characteristics of the aortic root in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) as compared to those with aortic stenosis (AS) to judge feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the JenaValve Trilogy system. Methods: Cardiac computed tomography angiography was performed prior to planned TAVR for 107 patients with severe AR and 92 patients with severe AS. Measurements related to aortic root and coronary artery anatomy were obtained and compared between groups. Perimeter >90 mm and aortic annulus angle â€‹>70 degrees were defined as the theoretical exclusion criteria for TAVR. A combination of sinus of Valsalva diameter <30 mm and coronary height <12 mm was defined as high risk for coronary occlusion. Results: The mean age of patients in the AR group was 74.9 ± 11.2 years, 46% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality was 3.6 ± 2.1. Comparatively, the mean age of patients in the AS group was 82.3 ± 5.53 years, 65% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeonsrisk score was 5.5 ± 3.3. Annulus area, perimeter, diameter, and angle were larger in patients with severe AR. Sinus of Valsalva diameters and heights were larger in patients with severe AR. More AR patients were excluded based on perimeter (14 vs. 2%) and annulus angle (6 vs. 1%). More AS patients exhibited high-risk anatomy for left main coronary occlusion (21 vs. 7%) and right coronary occlusion (14 vs. 3%). The maximum dimension of the ascending aorta was larger in patients with severe AR (39 vs. 35 mm). The percentage of referred AR patients with significant aortopathy requiring surgical intervention was very low (only 1 AR patient with ascending aorta diameter >5.5 cm). Conclusions: A significantly larger proportion of patients with severe AR are excluded from TAVR as compared to AS due to large aortic annulus size and steep annulus angulation. By far the most prevalent excluding factor is aortic annulus size, with fewer patients excluded due to angulation. AR patients have lower-risk anatomy for coronary occlusion. Larger transcatheter valve sizes and further delivery system modifications are required to treat a larger proportion of AR patients.

Does arterial cannulation site for aortic dissection repair impact surgical outcomes?

Background: Establishing cardiopulmonary bypass remains critical to the successful repair of an acute type A aortic dissection. A recent trend away from femoral arterial cannulation has occurred in part due to concerns of stroke risk from retrograde perfusion to the brain. The purpose of this study was to determine if arterial cannulation site for aortic dissection repair impacts surgical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School from January 1st, 2011 to March 8th, 2021. Of the 135 patients included, 98 (73%) underwent femoral arterial cannulation, 21 (16%) axillary artery cannulation, and 16 (12%) direct aorta cannulation. The study variables included demographic data, cannulation site, and complications. Results: The mean age was 63.6±14 years, with no difference between the femoral, axillary, and direct cannulation groups. Eighty-four patients (62%) were male, with similar percentages amongst each group. The rates of bleeding, stroke, and mortality specifically due to the arterial cannulation did not significantly differ based on cannulation site. None of the patients had strokes that were attributable to cannulation type. No patients died as a direct complication of arterial access. The overall in-hospital mortality was 22%, similar between groups. Conclusions: This study found no statistically significant different in rates of stroke or other complications based on cannulation site. Femoral arterial cannulation thus remains a safe and efficient choice for arterial cannulation in the repair of acute type A aortic dissection.

Sex Disparities in the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis and Related Outcomes: An Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on sex disparities has not been well established. This study sought to examine the impact of sex on outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) in the era of routine TAVR. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (2009-18) to study AS visits for all AVR and in-hospital outcomes as a function of sex. Survey estimation commands were used to provide national estimates. RESULTS: There were an estimated 431,344 surgical AVR (SAVR) and 189,137 TAVR inpatient visits. Mortality was higher in women after SAVR (3.8% ± 0.1 vs. 2.7% ± 0.07, p < 0.001) and TAVR (2.4% ± 0.1 vs. 1.7% ± 0.1, p < 0.001) compared to men. Female patients undergoing SAVR had higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, stroke, and bleeding (5.9% ± 0.1 vs. 5% ± 0.1, 2.8% ± 0.1 vs. 2.3% ± 0.07, and 37.8% ± 0.8 vs. 29.8% ± 0.6; p < 0.001, respectively) but lower rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) (16.4% ± 0.3 vs. 20.3% ± 0.3, p < 0.001). Women undergoing TAVR had higher rates of stroke and bleeding (2.4% ± 0.1 vs. 1.6% ± 0.09 and 28.7% ± 0.6 vs. 22% ± 0.5; p < 0.001, respectively) but lower rates of PPM and AKI (9.5% ± 0.3 vs. 10.7% ± 0.2 and 11.3% ± 0.3 vs. 13.4% ± 0.3; p < 0.001, respectively). Compared with isolated SAVR, isolated TAVR was associated with lower mortality in women during 2016-18, both after multivariable adjustment (OR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.60) and propensity matching (mean difference 0.66% ± 0.2); however, there was no difference in men. CONCLUSION: Although women continue to have higher in-hospital mortality following both TAVR and SAVR as compared to men, TAVR is associated with a lower in-hospital mortality in women compared to SAVR. Thus, TAVR may represent a potential intervention to narrow the sex-based disparities in the management of AS.

Is cardiopulmonary bypass standby still required for laser lead extractions?

OBJECTIVE: Over the last two decades there has been an increase in the number of cardiac implantable electronic devices and consequently, there has also been an increased need for lead extractions. Fibrotic attachments develop between the lead and the venous and cardiac structures that may require the use of a laser to mobilize the lead. Cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS) have traditionally provided backup for surgical emergencies for these extractions. This study evaluates the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing transvenous laser lead extractions (TLE) and determines if CTS are still needed for backup. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing laser lead extractions at a single academic center. Lead extractions using only laser sheaths were analyzed. The clinical characteristics, complications, and mortality of the patients were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one patients underwent TLEs from January 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2018. The majority were male (N = 80, 66.1%), and the average age was 66.48 ± 14 years. The indication for removal was either laser lead malfunction or infection. A total of 30 patients (24.8%) had complications postoperatively including wound hematomas, superficial infections, and arrhythmias. The average length of stay was 9 ± 12 for all the patients in the study. 2 patients (1.6%) had injuries that required emergency surgical repair with injuries to the posterior superior vena cava and right ventricle. Both patients survived the initial injury with one patient was discharged home on day 4 and the other succumbing to his injuries on postoperative day 20. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of surgical emergencies is rare the morbidity and mortality for TLE require that surgical backup be available.

Cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of TAVR availability in the US severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patient population.

AIMS: We evaluated the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to determine its value across all severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS) patients, especially those untreated because of concerns regarding invasive surgical AVR (SAVR) and its impact on active aging. METHODS: We performed payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CBA's benefit measure is active time: salaried labor, unpaid work, and active leisure. The study population is a cohort of US elderly SSAS patients. We compared a "TAVR available" scenario in which SSAS patients distribute themselves across TAVR, SAVR, and medical management (MM); and a "TAVR not available" scenario with only SAVR and MM. We structured each scenario with a decision-tree model of SSAS patient treatment allocation. We measured the association between health and active time in the US Health and Retirement Study and used this association to impute active time to SSAS patients given their health. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and rate of return (RoR) of TAVR availability were $8,533 and 395%, respectively. CUA net monetary benefits (NMB) were $212,199 per patient and $43.4 billion population-wide. CBA NMB were $50,530 per patient and $10.3 billion population-wide. LIMITATIONS: Among study limitations were scarcity of evidence regarding key parameters and the lack of long-term survival, health utility, and treatment cost data. Our analysis did not account for TAVR durability, retreatments, and valve-in-valve treatments. CONCLUSION: Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. The vast majority of TAVR value involves raising treatment uptake among the untreated.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common and lethal heart disease. Surgical treatment has long been available, but its invasiveness limits uptake. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment alternative. Its minimal invasiveness has significantly increased treatment rates, but economic evaluations omit this benefit, risking undervaluation. We evaluated TAVR in elderly US severe symptomatic AS patients, using payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Both CUA and CBA incorporated TAVR's impact on treatment rates. Given patient preferences for treatment options promoting active aging, our CBA used the value of active time as a benefit measure. We found that CUA/CBA net monetary benefits are $212,199/$50,530 per patient. Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice over surgery and medical management. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. Increased treatment uptake accounts for the vast share of TAVR's value.

Migrating Foreign Body in the Heart.

Foreign bodies in the heart are a rare condition and an exact mechanism for this occurrence has not been well described. These objects can reach the heart by direct penetration due to local trauma or through intravenous migration or may remain in the heart after medical procedures. The most common foreign bodies that reach the heart are bullets and shrapnel. The purpose of this study is to review a case where a patient injected himself with recreational drugs. The needle subsequently dislodged from the syringe and migrated into the heart.

Single center first year experience and outcomes with Impella 5.5 left ventricular assist device.

BACKGROUND: The Impella 5.5® was approved by the FDA for use for mechanical circulatory support up to 14 days in late 2019 at limited centers in the United States. Our single center's experience with Impella 5.5® can expand the overall understanding for achieving successful patient outcomes as well as provide support for the expansion of its FDA-approved use. METHODS: This study is an IRB-approved single-center retrospective cohort analysis of hospitalized adult patient characteristics and outcomes in cases where the Impella 5.5® was utilized for mechanical circulatory support. RESULTS: A total of 26 implanted Impella 5.5® devices were identified in 24 hospitalized patients at our institution from January 2020 to January 2021. The overall survival rate during index hospitalization was 75%. Eleven Impella 5.5® devices were identified in 10 patients with an average device implantation greater than 14 days. Average device implantation for this subgroup was 27 days with a range of 15-80 days. Survival rate for Impella 5.5® use greater than 14 days was 67%. In the entire cohort and subgroup of device implantation > 14 days, evidence of end organ damage improved with Impella 5.5® use. Complications in our cohort and subgroup of device implantation > 14 days were similar to previously reported complication incidence of axillary inserted LVAD devices. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution's experience with the Impella 5.5® has been strongly positive with favorable outcomes and helps to establish the Impella 5.5® as a viable option for mechanical circulatory support beyond 14 days.

Derivation and validation of the bridge to transplantation with left ventricular assist device score for 1 year mortality after heart transplantation. The BTT-LVAD score.

BACKGROUND: To derive and validate a risk score that accurately predicts 1-year mortality after heart transplantation (HT) in patients bridged to transplant (BTT) with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). METHODS: The UNOS database was queried to identify patients BTT with an LVAD between 2008 and 2018. Patients with ⩾1-year follow up were randomly divided into derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts. The primary endpoint was 1-year mortality. A simple additive risk score was developed based on the odds of 1-year mortality after HT. Risk groups were created, and survival was estimated and compared. RESULTS: A total of 7759 patients were randomly assigned to derivation (n = 5431) and validation (n = 2328) cohorts. One-year post-transplant mortality was 9.8% (n = 760). A 33-point scoring was created from six recipient variables and two donor variables. Risk groups were classified as low (0-5), intermediate (6-10), and high (>10). In the validation cohort, the predicted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in the high-risk group than the intermediate and low-risk groups, 14.7% versus 9% versus 6.1% respectively (log-rank test: p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The BTT-LVAD Score can serve as a clinical decision tool to guide therapeutic decisions in advanced heart failure patients.

Same-Day Discharge Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Multicenter PROTECT TAVR Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of same-day discharge (SDD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant stress on health care systems worldwide. SDD in highly selected TAVR patients can facilitate the provision of essential cardiovascular care while managing competing COVID-19 resource demands. METHODS: Patient selection for SDD was at the discretion of the local multidisciplinary heart team, across 7 international sites. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, all-cause readmission, major vascular complications, and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. RESULTS: From March 2020 to August 2021, 124 of 2,100 patients who underwent elective transfemoral TAVR were selected for SDD. The average age was 78.9 ± 7.8 years, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.4 (IQR: 1.4-4.2), and 32.3% (n = 40) had preexisting PPMs. There were no major vascular complications, strokes, or deaths during the index admission. One patient (0.8%) required PPM implantation for complete heart block and was discharged the same day. No patient required a PPM between discharge home and 30-day follow-up. The composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, all-cause readmission, major vascular complications, and new PPM at 30 days occurred in 5.7% patients (n = 6 of 106). CONCLUSIONS: SDD post-TAVR is safe and feasible in selected patients at low risk for adverse clinical events postdischarge. This strategy may have a potential role in highly selected patients even when the COVID-19 pandemic abates.

Utilizing ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring to reduce conduction related death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the utility of ambulatory cardiac monitoring (ACM) in detecting delayed advanced conduction abnormalities (DACA) and associated 30-day mortality. BACKGROUND: DACA are well-known complications of TAVR and may be associated with post-discharge mortality within 30-days. METHODS: Between October 2019 and October 2020, TAVR patients who were discharged home without a permanent pacemaker (PPM) were monitored with an ACM device for 14-days. The incidence of DACA at follow up, mortality and readmission within 30-days were investigated. The risk of DACA was assessed in three patient categories based on a composite of their 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) data. Group I: Normal pre-TAVR, periprocedural, and discharge ECGs. Group II: Normal pre-TAVR and abnormal subsequent ECGs. Group III. Abnormal baseline and abnormal subsequent ECGs. RESULTS: Among 340 TAVR patients, 248 were discharged home with an ACM device. The overall incidence of DACA was 7% (n = 17), of whom 4% (n = 10) required a PPM. Mortality and readmission between discharge and 30 days was 0% and 8.3%, respectively. Stratification of patients identified 96 (38.7%) patients in Group I: 50 (20%) in Group II, and 102 (41%) in Group III. The incidence of DACA requiring a PPM was 0% in Group I, 4% (n = 2) in Group II, and 8.5% (n = 8) in Group III (p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR patients who were discharged home with ACM, none died between discharge and 30-days. For those with normal baseline, perioperative and discharge ECG, there were no events of DACA at 14-days.

Thirty-Year Trends in Graft Survival After Heart Transplant: Modeled Analyses of a Transplant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is an epidemic in the United States, and transplantation remains the most definitive therapy. We describe multidecade trends in posttransplant graft survival, adjusted for concurrent changes in the population, over the 30 years antecedent to the most recent heart allocation policy change. METHODS: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were used to identify all primary adult heart recipients from 1989 to 2017. We described temporal changes in population characteristics (recipient and donor demographics and comorbidities, pretransplant interventions, clinical transplant measures, and providers). The primary outcome was graft survival, defined as freedom from all-cause death and graft failure, within 6 months posttransplant. Modified Poisson logistic regression estimated relative changes in risk of outcomes compared with 1989, with and without adjustment for changing population characteristics. We identified risk factors, quantified by associated risk ratios. RESULTS: Among 56,488 primary adult heart recipients, we observed 5529 (9.8%) all-cause deaths and 1933 (3.4%) graft failure events within 6 months posttransplant. Prevalence of known recipient risk factors increased over time. Unadjusted modeling demonstrated a significant 30-year improvement in graft survival, averaging 2.6% per year (95% confidence interval, 2.4-2.9; P for trend < .001). After adjusting for population changes the 30-year trend remained significant and graft survival improved on average 3.0% per year (95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.3). Regression modeling identified multiple predictors of graft survival. Modeling 2 additional outcomes of 6-month mortality and 6-month graft failure produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term graft survival after heart transplantation has improved significantly leading up to the 2018 heart allocation policy change, despite concurrent increase in prevalence of higher risk population characteristics.

Minimally Invasive Versus Full Sternotomy for Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a minimally invasive (MI) or full sternotomy (FS) approach. The present study compared outcomes of MI vs FS for isolated surgery among patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 low-risk trial. METHODS: Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with anatomy suitable for transfemoral access were eligible for PARTNER 3 enrollment. The primary outcome was the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (valve-, procedure-, or heart failure-related) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary end point as well as patient-reported health status at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: In the PARTNER 3 study, 358 patients underwent isolated valve replacement at 68 centers through an MI (n = 107) or FS (n = 251) approach (8 patients were converted from MI to FS). Mean age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between groups. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome was similar in the MI vs FS groups (16.9% vs 14.9%; hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.66-2.03; P = .618). There were no significant differences in the 1-year rates of all-cause death (2.8% vs 2.8%), all stroke (1.9% vs 3.6%), or rehospitalization (13.3% vs 10.6%, P > .05 for all). Quality of life, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 30 days or 1 year, was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients at low risk for isolated surgery, MI and FS approaches were associated with similar in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.

Early Discharge After Minimally Invasive Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery.

BACKGROUND: We investigated patient outcomes in relation to their postoperative length of stay after minimally invasive valve surgery. METHODS: All adults who survived elective, uncomplicated minimally invasive aortic or mitral valve surgery at a single center between 2012 and 2019 were classified by postoperative length of stay: early discharge (≤3 days) or late discharge (>3 days). The trend in early discharge was investigated over the study period, predictors of early discharge were identified using multivariate logistic regression modeling, and 1:1 propensity score matching was used to determine which patients in the late-discharge cohort had similar health to patients discharged early. Adjusted outcomes of 30-day mortality, readmission, and direct costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 1262 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive valve surgery, 618 were elective and uncomplicated, 25% (n = 162) of whom were discharged early. The proportion of early-discharge patients increased over time (P for trend < .05). A history of congestive heart failure, stroke, or smoking and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk of mortality score negatively predicted early discharge (P < .05). Propensity score matching identified 101 (22%) late-discharge patients comparable with early-discharge patients. Adjusted 30-day mortality and readmission rates were comparable between cohorts. The median direct costs per patient ($20,046 vs $22,124, P < .05) were significantly lower in the early-discharge cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In well-selected patients early discharge after minimally invasive valve surgery was associated with lower costs but comparable postoperative outcomes. About one-fifth of patients who remain in the hospital beyond postoperative day 3 may be candidates for earlier discharge.