In-Hospital Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation and Concomitant Valvular Surgery.

Valvular heart disease is common among left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. However, its management at the time of LVAD implantation remains controversial. Patients who underwent LVAD implantation and concomitant aortic (AVR), mitral (MVR), or tricuspid valve (TVR) repair or replacement from 2010 to 2017 were identified using the national inpatient sample. End points were in-hospital outcomes, length of stay, and cost. Procedure-related complications were identified via ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding and analysis was performed via mixed effect models. A total of 25,171 weighted adults underwent LVAD implantation without valvular surgery, 1,329 had isolated TVR, 1,021 AVR, 377 MVR, and 615 had combined valvular surgery (411 had TVR + AVR, 115 TVR + MVR, 62 AVR + MVR, 25 AVR + MVR + TVR). During the study period, rates of AVR decreased and combined valvular surgeries increased. Patients who underwent TVR or combined valvular surgery had overall higher burden of co-morbidities than LVAD recipients with or without other valvular procedures. Postoperative bleeding was higher with AVR whereas acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was higher with TVR or combined valvular surgery. In-hospital mortality was higher with AVR, MVR, or combined surgery without differences in the rates of stroke. Length of stay did not differ significantly among groups but cost of hospitalization and nonroutine discharge rates were higher for cases of TVR and combined surgery. Approximately 1 in 9 LVAD recipients underwent concomitant valvular surgery and TVR was the most frequently performed procedure. In-hospital mortality and cost were lower among those who did not undergo valvular surgery.

Racial disparities in in-hospital outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of patients undergoing various cardiac surgeries demonstrated worse outcomes among African-American (AA) patients. It remains unclear if the race is a predictor of outcomes among left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. METHODS: Patients who underwent LVAD implantation between 2010 and 2017 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. The race was classified as Caucasians vs AA vs Hispanics, and endpoints were in-hospital outcomes, length of stay, and cost. Procedure-related complications were identified via the International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) and ICD-10 coding and analysis performed via mixed-effect models. RESULTS: A total of 27 132 adults (5114 unweighted) underwent LVAD implantation in the U.S. between 2010 and 2017, including Caucasians (63.8%), AA (23.8%), and Hispanics (6%). The number of LVAD implantations increased in both Caucasians and AA during the study period. AA LVAD recipients were younger, with higher rates of females and mostly comorbidities, but lower rates of coronary artery disease and bypass grafting compared to Caucasians and Hispanics. Medicaid and median income at the lowest quartile were more frequent among AA LVAD recipients. We did not identify differences in stroke, bleeding complications, tamponade, infectious complications, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, and in-hospital mortality among racial groups. AA LVAD recipients had lower rates of routine discharge than Caucasians and Hispanics, longer length of stay than Caucasians, but similar cost of hospitalization. After adjustment for clinical comorbidities, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: We identified differences in clinical characteristics but not in in-hospital complications among LVAD recipients of a different races.

Meta-analysis of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Monotherapy With P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stents is a matter of considerable debate with more data suggesting a shorter period of DAPT is feasible. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate DAPT compared with monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of patients treated with either DAPT or monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor following PCI. Primary outcomes of interest included major bleeding, ischemic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events), and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Event rates were extracted, and the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed using the generic inverse method. We identified four trials with 29,089 randomized patients. Use of P2Y12 monotherapy was associated with 30% lower odds of major bleeding 0.70 (0.60-0.81; p <0.01). Ischemic and mortality outcomes were similar in the two groups. For the outcome of major bleeding the results favor the use of P2Y12 monotherapy in the subgroups of age, sex, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, acute coronary syndrome, and multivessel disease. The present meta-analysis provides the most updated data on the use of DAPT duration. Following an initial period of short-term DAPT, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor appears to be the superior strategy for optimization of bleeding and thrombotic risk after PCI.

Outcomes of Thoracentesis for Acute Heart Failure in Hospitals.

Data on in-hospital outcomes for hospitalizations undergoing thoracentesis (THR) for any cause has been conflicting. For hospitalizations with acute heart failure (HF), however, to date, no study has evaluated the outcomes of THR. Accordingly, our current study addresses this knowledge gap. We analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2005-14). The study population included all adults (>18 years) with the principal discharge diagnosis of HF and the presence of procedure code for THR. Hospitalizations with pneumonia, acute kidney injury, and co-morbidities such as malignancy, lymphoma, liver disease, end-stage renal disease, metastatic disease, and tuberculosis were excluded. Propensity matching was performed to identify a similar cohort of admissions that did not undergo THR. Primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalization. During the study period, 2,251,927 hospitalizations for HF were found from the database; of which, 70,823 (3.14%) had THR. After propensity matching, a matched cohort of 70,785 hospitalizations for HF was identified. In-hospital mortality was higher for those who underwent THR (2.5% vs 1.6%; p <0.001). In-hospital complications and procedures including cardiac arrest, sepsis, pneumothorax and hemothorax were more frequent in the THR group. Those who underwent THR had a longer mean length of stay (6.9 vs 4.5 days; p <0.01) and higher cost of hospitalization ($13,448 vs $ 8940; p <0.01). The trend analysis demonstrated a steady increase in the performance of THR in hospitalized HF between 2005 and 2014. In conclusion, THR performed during HF hospitalizations were associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality, complications and increased healthcare utilization in the form of longer length of stay and higher costs.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for a failing prosthesis is an appealing alternative to redo surgical AVR. We utilized data from the US National Inpatient Sample for the period 2012 to 2016 to identify hospitalizations for either ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital adverse events composite outcome (comprising of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury) and all-cause mortality. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the baseline differences between ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR cohorts. Survey techniques were employed to compare the 2 groups. Over 5 years, there has been a considerable increase in both interventions for prosthetic aortic valve failure, with significantly higher utilization of ViV-TAVI compared to redo-SAVR (p <0.01). Out of the 3,305 hospitalizations for prosthetic aortic valve failure, 1,420 in matched pairs underwent either ViV-TAVI (n = 710) or redo-SAVR (n = 710). ViV-TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital composite adverse outcomes (14.1% vs 25.4%, p = 0.018), and numerically lower but statistically insignificant mortality (<1.0% vs 5.2%; p = 0.06). ViV-TAVI was associated with a decreased length of hospitalization (mean 6.6 vs 9.7 days; p <0.01). In the matched cohort, postoperative bleeding and transfusions were significantly lower for ViV-TAVI compared with redo-SAVR (17.6% vs 31.0% and 12% vs 31% respectively, p <0.01 for both). Acute kidney injury, sepsis, permanent pacemaker implantation, and vascular complications, although numerically better, did not differ between 2 strategies. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with lower in-hospital MACE rates and reduced length of hospitalization compared with redo-SAVR.

Trends and Outcomes With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients ≥80 Years of Age.

Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown comparable outcomes to surgical mitral valve replacement or repair (SMVR) in patients who are at a higher risk of surgical complications and therefore are not amenable to surgery. Elderly patients are considered poor surgical candidates due to their advanced age, and presence of comorbidities. A sub-analysis of EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study) trial identified patients of >70 years of age appear to have a similar risk-benefit profile for either approach of surgery or transcatheter. This finding does have some caveats considering the trial included surgical cohort with both repair and replacement. Utilizing the National Inpatient Sample, we identified a surgical cohort of ≥80 years of age that underwent mitral valve repair and used propensity matching to compare it with a similar cohort that underwent TMVR. In a well-balanced cohort, TMVR was associated with significantly lower in-patient mortality (0.7% vs 3.1%). TMVR was also associated with significantly decreased in-hospital complications such as acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, postoperative hemorrhage, transfusion, permanent pacemaker, and respiratory and vascular complications. Owing to this, the duration of hospital stay is approximately 6 days less with TMVR. Trend analysis has shown a paradigm shift in these elderly patients with 85% of all repairs in 2012 were performed surgically, whereas in 2016 almost 94% of all the repairs being performed via a transcatheter approach. In conclusion, in patients ≥80 years of age, the surgical MVR had 4-fold higher mortality compared to TMVR with higher cardiac, vascular, hemorrhagic and respiratory complications. Despite the limitations of being observational in nature, this data strongly supports the preferential use of the transcatheter approach for mitral valve repair in patients ≥80 years of age.