Racial Differences and In-Hospital Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data on how race affects the clinical presentation and short-term outcome among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19). METHODS: Hospitalized patients ≥ 18 years, testing positive for COVID-19 from March 13, 2020 to May 13, 2020 in a United States (U.S.) integrated healthcare system with multiple facilities in two states were evaluated. We documented racial differences in clinical presentation, disposition, and in-hospital outcomes for hospitalized patients with COIVD-19. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to evaluate independent predictors of outcomes by race. RESULTS: During the study period, 3678 patients tested positive for COVID-19, among which 866 were hospitalized (55.4% self-identified as Caucasian, 29.5% as Black, 3.3% as Hispanics, and 4.7% as other racial groups). Hospitalization rates were highest for Black patients (36.6%), followed by other (28.3%), Caucasian patients (24.4%), then Hispanic patients (10.7%) (p < 0.001). Caucasian patients were older, and with more comorbidities. Absolute lymphocyte count was lowest among Caucasian patients. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that compared to Caucasians, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.09; p = 0.08) or other races (adjusted OR 1.62; 95% CI 0.80-3.27; p = 0.18). Black and Hispanic patients were admitted less frequently to the intensive care unit (ICU), and Black patients were less likely to require pressor support or hemodialysis (HD) compared with Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis of a large integrated healthcare system early in the pandemic revealed that patients with COVID-19 did exhibit some racial variations in clinical presentation, laboratory data, and requirements for advanced monitoring and cardiopulmonary support, but these nuances did not dramatically alter in-hospital outcomes.

Access Options for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Unfavorable Aortoiliofemoral Anatomy.

In the current era, 10-15 % of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-eligible high and prohibitive risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are not candidates for transfemoral arterial access. Knowledge of the various alternative access options can enable TAVR teams to provide improved quality of life and potentially life-saving treatment for a group of patients who otherwise have no viable options. In this article, we review approach to patients with unfavorable femoral arterial anatomy and provide an in-depth discussion on the various alternative routes for TAVR.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. BACKGROUND: TAVR is an alternative to AVR for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis based on cost, quality of life, and survival data collected in the PARTNER A (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial in which patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR. Cumulative 12-month costs (assessed from a U.S. societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared separately for the transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) cohorts. RESULTS: Although 12-month costs and QALYs were similar for TAVR and AVR in the overall population, there were important differences when results were stratified by access site. In the TF cohort, total 12-month costs were slightly lower with TAVR and QALYs were slightly higher such that TF-TAVR was economically dominant compared with AVR in the base case and economically attractive (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY) in 70.9% of bootstrap replicates. In the TA cohort, 12-month costs remained substantially higher with TAVR, whereas QALYs tended to be lower such that TA-TAVR was economically dominated by AVR in the base case and economically attractive in only 7.1% of replicates. CONCLUSIONS: In the PARTNER trial, TAVR was an economically attractive strategy compared with AVR for patients suitable for TF access. Future studies are necessary to determine whether improved experience and outcomes with TA-TAVR can improve its cost-effectiveness relative to AVR.

Progress in ascending and aortic arch surgery: minimally invasive surgery, blood conservation, and neurological deficit prevention.

BACKGROUND: Herein are described recent developments in aortic surgery techniques and the improved results. METHODS: Of 403 ascending and aortic arch operations, 68 patients underwent minimally invasive aortic surgery including 23 for aortic dissection, 5 for Marfan syndrome, 29 reoperations, and 39 with hypothermic arrest. Blood conservation methods were used in 187 of the 403 patients (46.5%). Aortic valve procedures were used in 267 (66.2%), including 51 (12.7%) valve-preserving operations. A protocol for stroke and neurocognitive deficit prevention was used in an attempt to prevent neurologic deficits. Data were prospectively collected and included new neurocognitive events either by formal testing (n = 35) or by informal questioning. RESULTS: Stroke occurred in 2.0% (8 of 403); clinical gross neurocognitive deficits in 2.5% (10 of 403) with a 98% 30-day survival. For those patients undergoing the minimally invasive operation 1 hospital death occurred (98.5% survival). Homologous operative transfusions were required in only 12% of blood conservation patients (23 of 187) and their postoperative intubation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay were significantly shorter (p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery is particularly useful for reoperations. The blood conservation methods appear to be beneficial and the number of neurologic deficits is low with the current protocol.