Comparison of Transcatheter and Open Mitral Valve Repair Among Patients With Mitral Regurgitation.

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) device for degenerative mitral regurgitation for patients at prohibitive surgical risk. To better understand contemporary utilization trends and outcomes, we reviewed hospitalizations, identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, in which the patient underwent TMVr or mitral valve repair (MVr) with a diagnosis of mitral regurgitation, without stenosis, from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2014 to 2017. We included 10,020 hospitalizations in which the patient underwent TMVr and 5845 in which the patient underwent MVr and assessed trends in demographic characteristics, patient comorbidities, total hospital charges, and outcomes. Transcatheter mitral valve repair experienced exponential growth, increasing from 150 to 5115 over the study period (P<.001 for trend), whereas MVr grew to a lesser degree. The median length of stay for TMVr decreased from 4 to 2 days; mortality declined from 3.3% to 1.6% (P<.001 for both). Both TMVr and MVr rates of discharge home increased over the study period. Total charges for TMVr increased from $149,582 to $178,109, whereas those for MVr increased to a lesser degree, from $149,426 to $157,146 (P<.001 for both). Discharge disposition, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality all exhibited favorable trends for both procedures. Caution must be exercised in direct comparisons between procedures as they target somewhat different populations. With expanded indications for TMVr, we anticipate further increases in procedural volume, although the effect on MVr remains unclear.

Costs and in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in commercial cases using a propensity score matched model.

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital cost and outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVI is an effective treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high risk for traditional SAVR. Several studies using trial data or outside United States registry data have addressed TAVI cost issues, although there is a paucity of cost data involving commercial cases in the United States. Using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample files, a propensity score-matched analysis of all commercial TAVI and SAVR cases performed in 2011 was conducted. Overall hospital cost and length of stay, as well as procedural complications, were compared between the 2 matched cohorts: 595 TAVI patients were matched to 1,785 SAVR patients in a 1:3 ratio. There was no difference in mean ($181,912 vs $196,298) or median ($152,993 vs $155,974) hospital cost between TAVI and SAVR (p = 0.60). The TAVI group had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay than the SAVR group (mean 9.76 vs 12.01 days, p <0.001). There was no difference in postprocedural in-hospital death or stroke, but TAVI patients were more likely to have bleeding complications, to have vascular complications, and to require pacemakers. In conclusion, when analyzing in-hospital cost of commercial TAVI and SAVR cases using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data set, TAVI is an economically satisfactory alternative to SAVR and results in an approximately 2-day shorter length of stay during the index hospitalization.