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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Atrial functional versus ventricular functional mitral regurgitation: Prognostic implications.

BACKGROUND: Atrial functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) occurs because of left atrial dilatation or atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved left ventricular (LV) function, contrary to ventricular FMR, which occurs because of LV dysfunction. Despite pathophysiological differences, current guidelines do not discriminate between these 2 entities. METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2019, all adult patients with ≥3+ mitral regurgitation who underwent mitral valve repair or replacement were identified. Postoperative outcomes and midterm time-to-event rates (survival and reoperation) were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 94 atrial FMR (mean age, 67.6 years) and 84 ventricular FMR (mean age, 64 years) patients met inclusion criteria. Differences in baseline cardiac morphology and function of the atrial FMR and ventricular FMR patients were as follows: concomitant atrial fibrillation (37.2% vs 14.3%), heart failure (42.6% vs 63.1%), LV ejection fraction (60% vs 37%), at least moderate LV dilation (4.8% vs 40.6%), and moderate/severe right heart dysfunction (15.2% vs 5.1%), respectively. Operative mortality was 0% in the atrial FMR versus 1.2% in the ventricular FMR cohort. Actuarial estimates of survival and freedom from reoperation at 5 and 10 years was significantly higher in the atrial FMR cohort versus the ventricular FMR cohort. Ventricular FMR also remained a significant predictor of midterm mortality in our risk-adjusted analysis (adjusted hazard ratio for ventricular FMR, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.001-3.26). CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in baseline characteristics in terms of cardiac morphology and function among atrial FMR and ventricular FMR patients, which appear to affect in-hospital and midterm outcomes. Because of these discrepancies, early discrimination between these 2 etiologies of FMR might facilitate more tailored approaches to management.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Non-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers: Implications for Tier-Based Systems of Care.

BACKGROUND: With wide expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and dissemination of multidisciplinary-based approaches to care, societies are discussing the implementation of a tier system to valve centers. This study explores the impact of tier-based systems of care on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes at institutions that perform SAVR only. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SAVR procedures from 2012 to 2015 were included. The SAVR hospitals were stratified into either tier A, valve centers with a TAVR program; or tier B, valve centers without a TAVR program. Adjusted survival, assessed by multivariable Cox regression, controlled for program type and patient risk profile. Time-dependent analysis accounted for hospitals that initiated a TAVR program during the study period. RESULTS: Overall, there were 562 tier A and 485 tier B SAVR hospitals. Tier A hospitals had significantly higher comorbidity burden compared with tier B hospitals (all P < .05) but had significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (3.2% vs 4.1%) and 1-year mortality (8.1% vs 9.4%; both P < .05). After risk stratification, tier B hospitals had significantly worse 30-day mortality compared with tier A hospitals for all patient risk-profiles, except for the low-risk patients (P < .01). These findings persisted in the time-dependent analysis. Adjusted midterm survival was higher in tier A vs tier B hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients can safely undergo SAVR in both tier level hospitals without compromising outcomes. Establishment of quality of care measures, especially in the SAVR-only hospitals, remains paramount and should be closely integrated when designing tier-based systems for aortic valve replacement care.

Debunking the July Effect in Transcatheter Interventions in Structural Heart Disease: Truth or Myth?

Background: The "July effect", the perception of worse outcomes in the first month of training, has been previously demonstrated in critical care medicine and general surgery. However, the July effect in the context of structural heart interventions (i.e., transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] and MitraClip) remains unknown. Methods: All adult patients undergoing TAVR or MitraClip in the 2012-2016 National Inpatient Sample were included. Outcomes were compared by procedure month and academic year quartiles (i.e., between the first academic year quartile [Q1] vs. the fourth quartile [Q4]). Outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals were compared using risk-adjusted logistic difference-in-difference regression. Results: During the study period, 94,170 TAVR (Q1: 25,250; Q4: 23,170) and 8750 MitraClip (Q1: 2220; Q4: 2150) procedures were performed. In-hospital mortality did not vary as per academic year quartiles for either procedure, even after risk adjustment. These findings persisted in sensitivity analysis by procedure month and newer device era (2015-2016; all p > 0.05). In the subgroup analysis, the unadjusted and adjusted Q1 vs. Q4 in-hospital mortality between teaching and nonteaching hospitals were similar for either procedure. In-hospital mortality also did not vary by procedure month when stratified by hospital teaching status for both procedures. However, postprocedural complication rates appeared to be improving among the TAVR teaching hospitals for stroke, major bleeding, and vascular complications (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this large, nationwide study, the July effect was not evident for structural heart interventions. With increasing interest and growth in transcatheter procedures, early resident and fellow teaching can be achieved with appropriate supervision.

Transcatheter Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Chest-Directed Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery for radiation-induced valvular disease is associated with adverse outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used in patients with a history of chest-directed radiation therapy and aortic stenosis (CRT-AS). OBJECTIVES: We examined outcomes of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with CRT-AS. METHODS: We identified 69 patients with CRT-AS who underwent TAVR from January 2012 to September 2018. Operative mortality, postoperative morbidities, and length of hospitalization were compared with 117 contemporaneous patients with CRT-AS who underwent isolated SAVR. Age-adjusted survival was evaluated by means of Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Compared with SAVR patients, TAVR patients were older (mean age 75 ± 11.5 vs 65 ± 11.5 years), with more comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease (all P < 0.050). Operative mortality was 4.3% for SAVR vs 1.4% for TAVR (P = 0.41). Most SAVR deaths (4 of 5) occurred in the intermediate-/high-risk group (Society for Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of operative mortality >3%; P = 0.026). The ratio of observed to expected mortality was better for low-risk SAVR patients and all TAVR patients (0.72 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.86] and 0.24 [95% CI: 0.05-0.51], respectively) compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR patients (2.52 [95% CI: 0.26-4.13]). SAVR patients had significantly longer median intensive care unit and overall length of stay and higher blood transfusion requirements but similar rates of stroke and pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was associated with excellent in-hospital outcomes and better survival compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR in patients with CRT-AS. While SAVR still has a role in low-risk patients or those for whom TAVR is unsuitable for technical or anatomical reasons, TAVR is emerging as the standard of care for intermediate-/high-risk CRT-AS patients.

Nationally Representative Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes: Report From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine real-world experience with repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a population-based national database. BACKGROUND: Repeat TAVR is a growing option in patients requiring reintervention for TAVR. However, large-scale studies with longitudinal follow-up are limited. METHODS: All Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 were included. Outcomes included 30-day and longitudinal mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, stroke, pacemaker insertion, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or cardiac arrest. Outcomes of repeat TAVR were compared with surgical explantation after TAVR (TAVR explantation) in a matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 133,250 patients who underwent TAVR, 617 (0.46%) underwent subsequent repeat TAVR at a median interval of 154 days (interquartile range: 58-537 days). Mortality at 30 days and 1 year was 6.0% and 22.0%, respectively. Rates of 30-day stroke and pacemaker insertion were 1.8% and 4.2%. Mortality at 30 days was lower in those who underwent their first TAVR during the later era (2015-2017) compared with earlier years (2012-2014) (4.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.049). Repeat TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with a matched group undergoing TAVR explantation (6.2% vs 12.3%; P = 0.05), although 1-year mortality was similar (21.0% vs 20.8%; P = 1.000). The incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events was higher with TAVR explantation compared with repeat TAVR (risk ratio: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.88-4.99; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat TAVR was performed with acceptable 30-day mortality in this high-risk population. Short-term outcomes were superior to surgical explantation, but 1-year outcomes were similar. Repeat TAVR will likely be an important option for aortic valve reintervention after TAVR.

A step-by-step guide to transseptal valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

With the recent success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transcatheter options for the management of mitral valve pathology have also gained considerable attention. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is one such technique that has emerged as a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with degenerated mitral valve bioprostheses at high-risk for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement. Several access strategies, including trans-apical, transseptal, trans-jugular, and trans-atrial access have been described for ViV-TMVR. Initial experiences were performed primarily via a trans-apical approach through a left mini-thoracotomy because it offers direct access and coaxial device alignment. With the advancements in TMVR technology, such as the development of smaller delivery catheters with high flexure capabilities, the transseptal approach via the femoral vein has emerged as the preferred option. This technique offers the advantages of a totally percutaneous approach, avoids the need to enter the thoracic cavity or pericardial space, and provides superior outcomes compared to a trans-apical approach. In this review, we outline key aspects of patient selection, imaging, procedural techniques, and examine contemporary clinical outcomes of transseptal ViV-TMVR.

Long-term Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement With Aortic Homograft: 27 Years Experience.

BACKGROUND: Aortic homografts have been used in young patients requiring aortic valve replacement. Currently, these grafts are generally reserved for aortic valve endocarditis with or without root abscess; however, longitudinal data are lacking. Our aim was to assess the long-term safety and durability of homograft implantation. METHODS: All adult patients undergoing aortic homograft implantation at a single institution from 1992 to 2019 were included. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality and aortic valve reoperation, studied over a median follow-up duration of 19 years. RESULTS: In all, 252 patients with a mean age of 49 years were included. Infective endocarditis was the primary indication for surgery in 95 patients (38%). The endocarditis group, compared with the no-endocarditis group, had a higher prevalence of New York Heart Association class III-IV (56% vs 26%), chronic kidney disease (22% vs 1%), prior cardiac surgery (40% vs 10%), and emergency status (7% vs 0%; all P < .001). Operative mortality was higher among endocarditis patients (16% vs 0.6%, P < .001), which persisted after risk adjustment. Among patients who survived to discharge, however, there was no difference in long-term survival between the endocarditis group and no-endocarditis group. Overall survival and freedom from reoperation were 88.3% and 80% at 15 years and 87.2% and 78% at 25 years, respectively. Indications for reoperation included structural valve deterioration (83%), endocarditis (12%), and mitral valve disease (5%). Reoperative mortality occurred in 2 patients (4.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic homografts are associated with good long-term survival and admissible freedom from reoperation. Operative mortality is high among patients with endocarditis; however, for those who survive to discharge, long-term survival and durability are the same as for patients without endocarditis.

Subclinical Structural Valve Degeneration in Young Patients With Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic structural valve degeneration (SVD) has previously been a clinical diagnosis, but subclinical changes have been increasingly recognized in transcatheter valves. The significance of subclinical SVD after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), however, is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to characterize the incidence and outcomes of subclinical SVD in young patients after SAVR. METHODS: Patients aged ≤65 years who underwent bioprosthetic SAVR between January 2002 and June 2018 at a single institution were included. Endocarditis cases and those with in-hospital mortality were excluded. All available longitudinal postoperative echocardiograms were reviewed. Subclinical SVD was defined as an increase in mean transvalvular gradient of at least 10 mm Hg and/or new onset of mild intraprosthetic regurgitation or increase by at least 1 grade, compared with baseline postoperative echocardiogram. RESULTS: Overall, 822 unique SAVR cases were included. Over the study period, 356 (43.3%) patients developed subclinical SVD. Only 21.5% of those with subclinical SVD progressed to clinical SVD or to repeat aortic valve procedures. In those with progression, the first signs of SVD occurred significantly earlier than in those whose changes remained stable (11 months vs 23 months; P = .036). Anticoagulation did not impact the development or progression of subclinical SVD. There was no difference in long-term survival for those who did or did not develop subclinical SVD. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical SVD occurred in a large proportion of young patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR. Despite its high prevalence, subclinical SVD was not associated with decreased survival or repeat procedures.

A step-by-step guide to trans-axillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The application of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded rapidly over the last decade as a less invasive option for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. In order to perform successful TAVR, vascular access must be obtained with a large-bore catheter to deliver the transcatheter valve to the aortic annulus. Several techniques have been developed for this purpose including transfemoral (TF), trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-caval, trans-carotid, and trans-axillary (TAx) with varying degrees of success. Among them, TF access is the most common and preferred method owing to its superior and well-established outcomes. However, in the setting of diseased iliofemoral arterial vessels, severe tortuosity, or iliofemoral arteries of insufficient caliber, TF access may not be possible. In these scenarios, one of the aforementioned alternative access routes needs to be considered. TAx-TAVR is an attractive alternative because it can be accomplished via access to a peripheral vessel as opposed to needing to enter the pericardial space or thoracic cavity. In addition, the open surgical cut-down procedure used to expose the axillary artery is familiar to cardiac surgeons who are accustomed to cannulating it for cardiopulmonary bypass. With advancements in TAVR technology including the evolution of delivery systems and corresponding smaller sheath sizes, total percutaneous access via the axillary artery is gaining substantial attention. In this review, we outline key aspects of patient selection, imaging and procedural techniques, and examine contemporary clinical outcomes with this approach.

Incidence, Characteristics, Predictors, and Outcomes of Surgical Explantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a paucity of information on surgical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence, patient characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of surgical explantation after TAVR using a population-based, nationally representative database. METHODS: We analyzed the Medicare Provider profile to include all U.S. patients undergoing TAVR from 2012 to 2017. Time to surgical explant was calculated from the index TAVR discharge to surgical explantation. Post-operative survival was assessed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and landmark analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of surgical explantation was 0.2% (227 of 132,633 patients), and was 0.28% and 0.14% in the early and newer TAVR era, respectively. The median time to surgical explant was 212 days, whereas 8.8% and 70.9% underwent surgical explantation within 30 days and 1 year, respectively. The primary indication for reintervention was bioprosthetic failure (79.3%). Compared with the no-explant cohort, the explant cohort was significantly younger (mean age 73.7 years vs. 81.7 years), with a lower prevalence of heart failure (55.9% vs. 65.8%) but more likely a lower-risk profile cohort (15% vs. 2.4%; all p < 0.05). The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 13.2% and 22.9%, respectively, and did not vary by either time to surgical explant or TAVR era, or between patients with versus without endocarditis (all p > 0.05). The time-dependent Cox regression analysis demonstrated a higher mortality in those with surgical explantation (hazard ratio: 4.03 vs. no-explant group; 95% confidence interval: 1.81 to 8.98). Indication, time-to-surgical-explant, and year of surgical explantation were not associated with worse post-explantation survival (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides updated evidence on the incidence, timing, and outcomes of surgical explantation of a TAVR prosthesis. Although the overall incidence was low, short-term mortality was high. These findings stress the importance of future mechanistic studies on TAVR explantation and may have implications on lifetime management of aortic stenosis, particularly in younger patients.

Variability in opioid prescribing practices among cardiac surgeons and trainees.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The opioid epidemic has become a major public health crisis in recent years. Discharge opioid prescription following cardiac surgery has been associated with opioid use disorder; however, ideal practices remain unclear. Our aim was to examine current practices in discharge opioid prescription among cardiac surgeons and trainees. METHODS: A survey instrument with open- and closed-ended questions, developed through a 3-round Delphi method, was circulated to cardiac surgeons and trainees via the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons. Survey questions focused on routine prescription practices including type, dosage and duration. Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of current education and guidelines surrounding opioid medication. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of respondents reported prescribing opioids at discharge following routine sternotomy-based procedures, however, there remained significant variability in the type and dose of medication prescribed. The median (interquartile range) number of pills prescribed was 30 (20-30) with a median total dose of 135 (113-200) Morphine Milligram Equivalents. Informal teaching was the most commonly reported primary influence on prescribing habits and a lack of formal education regarding opioid prescription was associated with a higher number of pills prescribed. A majority of respondents (91%) felt that there would be value in establishing practice guidelines for opioid prescription following cardiac surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability exists with respect to routine opioid prescription at discharge following cardiac surgery. Education has come predominantly from informal sources and there is a desire for guidelines. Standardization in this area may have a role in combatting the opioid epidemic.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes.

AIMS: We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. METHODS AND RESULTS: We utilized the nationally weighted 2012-16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.78) compared to re-SAVR. CONCLUSION: In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.