Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.

OBJECTIVES: Limited data are available from randomized trials comparing outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery in patients with different risks and with follow-up of at least 4 years or longer. In this large, population-based cohort study, long-term mortality and morbidity were investigated in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis using a surgically implanted bioprosthesis (surgical/biological aortic valve replacement; sB-AVR) or TAVR. METHODS: Individual data from the Austrian Insurance Funds from 2010 through 2020 were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed in the overall and propensity score-matched populations. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and cardiovascular events. RESULTS: From January 2010 through December 2020, a total of 18 882 patients underwent sB-AVR (n = 11 749; 62.2%) or TAVR (n = 7133; 37.8%); median follow-up was 5.8 (95% CI 5.7-5.9) years (maximum 12.3 years). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher with TAVR compared with sB-AVR: hazard ratio 1.552, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.469-1.640, P < 0.001; propensity score-matched hazard ratio 1.510, 1.403-1.625, P < 0.001. Estimated median survival was 8.8 years (95% CI 8.6-9.1) with sB-AVR versus 5 years (4.9-5.2) with TAVR. Estimated 5-year survival probability was 0.664 (0.664-0.686) with sB-AVR versus 0.409 (0.378-0.444) with TAVR overall, and 0.690 (0.674-0.707) and 0.560 (0.540-0.582), respectively, with propensity score matching. Separate subgroup analyses for patients aged 65-75 years and >75 years indicated a significant survival benefit in patients selected for sB-AVR in both groups. Other predictors of mortality were age, sex, previous heart failure, diabetes and chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective national population-based study, selection for TAVR was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared with sB-AVR in patients ≥65 years with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in the >2-year follow-up.

Revalidating the prognostic relevance of the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI): A twenty-year experience examining the performance of the ABSI score in consideration of progression and advantages of burn treatments from a single center in Vienna.

BACKGROUND: The Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) is a five-variable scale to help evaluate burn severity upon initial assessment. As other studies have been conducted with comparatively small patient populations, the purpose of this study is to revalidate the prognostic relevance of the ABSI in our selected population (N = 1193) 4 decades after its introduction, considering the progress in the treatment of severe burn injuries over the past decades. In addition, we evaluate whether comorbidities influence the survival probability of severely burned patients. METHODS: This retrospective study presents data from the Center for Severely Burned Patients of the General Hospital in Vienna. We included 1193 patients for over 20 years. Regression models were used to describe the prognostic accuracy of the ABSI. RESULTS: The ABSI can still be used as a prognostic factor for the probability of survival of severely burned patients. The odds of passing increases by a factor of 2.059 for each unit increase in the ABSI with an area under the curve value of 0.909. Over time, the likelihood of survival increased. The existence of chronic kidney disease negatively impacts the survival probability of severely burned patients. CONCLUSION: The ABSI can still be used to provide accurate information about the chances of survival of severely burned patients; however, further exploration of the impact of chronic kidney disease on the survival probability and adding variables to the ABSI scale should be considered. The probability of survival has increased over the last 20 years.