Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Dialysis Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) clinical trials in North America excluded patients on dialysis and, consequently, the outcomes of TAVR in dialysis-dependent patients remain unknown. METHODS: All Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing TAVR (n = 5,005) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 32,634) between January 1, 2011, and November 30, 2012, were identified using procedural codes collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dialysis status and comorbidities were identified using diagnosis codes present on arrival for TAVR hospitalization. Patients supported on dialysis who underwent TAVR (n = 224) were compared with non-dialysis patients who underwent TAVR as well as a propensity-matched group of contemporaneous dialysis patients who underwent SAVR (n = 194 pairs). RESULTS: The TAVR patients on dialysis were younger than non-dialysis TAVR patients (79.2 years vs 84.1 years; p < 0.01) but had higher prevalence of comorbidities. Dialysis TAVR patients had increased mortality at 30 days (13% vs 6%, p < 0.01) and significantly worse survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable regression found dialysis to be independently associated with worse survival (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.33% to 2.25%, p < 0.01) in TAVR patients. Propensity-matched dialysis SAVR and dialysis TAVR patients had no significant differences in demographic or risk factors. Matched dialysis TAVR patients had shorter length of stay (6 interquartile range, 4 to 10] vs 10 [IQR 7 to 18] days; p < 0.01) and comparable survival. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR in dialysis patients is associated with decreased survival compared with non-dialysis patients; however, it is comparable with SAVR in high risk dialysis patients based on a propensity-matched comparison.

Factors associated with vascular complications in patients undergoing balloon-expandable transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement via open versus percutaneous approaches.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement are common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the effect of access approach on vascular complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2013, 331 patients underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement via open surgical (OS) or fully percutaneous (PC) approaches. Patient data and clinical outcomes were collected. Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined vascular complications were noted. Multivariable analysis with propensity matching was performed, and vascular complications, mortality, and length of stay were assessed. One hundred twenty patients were treated with the OS approach and 211 patients via the PC approach. There were fewer major vascular complications (11% versus 20%; P=0.03) and shorter length of stay (7.5 versus 9.9 days; P=0.003) in the PC group when compared with those in the OS group. In multivariable analysis, vascular complications were more likely in women (odds ratio, 2.2; P=0.02) and with increasing differences between sheath outer diameter and minimal artery diameter (overall vascular complications: odds ratio, 1.4; P=0.02 and major vascular complications: odds ratio, 2.0; P<0.001). Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated no difference in vascular complications between the OS and the PC groups (22% versus 19%; P=0.73) but significantly reduced length of stay in the PC group (7.9 versus 10.0 days; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed via the PC route is associated with similar risk of vascular complications and significantly lower postprocedural length of stay than the OS route. The degree of sheath oversizing with respect to iliofemoral minimal artery diameter and female sex are associated with vascular complications regardless of access approach.

Ventricular assist device implant in the elderly is associated with increased, but respectable risk: a multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of elderly patients with end-stage heart failure. Destination mechanical circulatory support is often the only therapy available for these patients who are not transplant candidates. The outcomes after continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF LVAD) implant in older patients remains unclear. We undertook this multi-institutional study to quantify short-term and midterm outcomes after CF LVAD implant in the elderly. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) national registry that underwent implant of a CF LVAD (June 2006 to April 2012). Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based upon age (<70 years [n = 4,439] and ≥ 70 years (n = 590]). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were analyzed. The primary endpoint, survival, was compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Patients age 70 and older were more hemodynamically stable pre-VAD implant as evidenced by INTERMACS profile and inotrope dependence. Perioperative outcomes, including median bypass time (89 vs 89 minutes) and length of stay (0.657 vs 0.657 months) were similar between cohorts (p = not significant). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant difference in 2-year survival between patients aged 70 years or greater (63%) and less than 70 (71%, p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed age as an independent predictor of mortality during follow-up (p < 0.001). Nonetheless, midterm cumulative survival in the older cohort was still reasonable (63% at 2 years). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-institutional analysis revealed advanced age as a predictor of increased mortality after CF LVAD implantation. Careful patient selection is critical in the elderly to optimize long-term outcomes after CF LVAD implantation.

Minimally invasive approach provides at least equivalent results for surgical correction of mitral regurgitation: a propensity-matched comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive approaches to mitral valve surgery are increasingly used, but the surgical approach must not compromise the clinical outcome for improved cosmesis. We examined the outcomes of mitral repair performed through right minithoracotomy or median sternotomy. METHODS: Between January 2002 and October 2011, 1011 isolated mitral valve repairs were performed in the University of Pennsylvania health system (455 sternotomies, 556 right minithoracotomies). To account for key differences in preoperative risk profiles, propensity scores identified 201 well-matched patient pairs with mitral regurgitation of any cause and 153 pairs with myxomatous disease. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was similar between propensity-matched groups (0% vs 0% for the degenerative cohort; 0% vs 0.5%, P = .5 for the overall cohort; in minimally invasive and sternotomy groups, respectively). Incidence of stroke, infection, myocardial infarction, exploration for postoperative hemorrhage, renal failure, and atrial fibrillation also were comparable. Transfusion was less frequent in the minimally invasive groups (11.8% vs 20.3%, P = .04 for the degenerative cohort; 14.0% vs 22.9%, P = .03 for the overall cohort), but time to extubation and discharge was similar. A 99% repair rate was achieved in patients with myxomatous disease, and a minimally invasive approach did not significantly increase the likelihood of a failed repair resulting in mitral valve replacement. Patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral repair were more likely to have no residual post-repair mitral regurgitation (97.4% vs 92.1%, P = .04 for the degenerative cohort; 95.5% vs 89.6%, P = .02 for the overall cohort). In the overall matched cohort, early readmission rates were higher in patients undergoing sternotomies (12.6% vs 4.4%, P = .01). Over 9 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in long-term survival between groups (P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriate patients with isolated mitral valve disease of any cause, a right minithoracotomy approach may be used without compromising clinical outcome.