Background: As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) extends its reach to lower surgical risk patients, the differences between resource utilization for TAVR and surgical AVR (SAVR) will become increasingly important. Methods and Results: AVR procedures between January 2012 and September 2015 at hospitals performing TAVR were identified using the National Inpatient Sample databases. Adults aged ≥50 years with aortic stenosis who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR were eligible for inclusion. Standardized morbidity ratio weights were calculated using patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Weighted linear and generalized logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of undergoing TAVR, compared with undergoing SAVR, on length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition. In TAVR-performing hospitals, 7266 (40%) patients underwent TAVR (6107 endovascular approach and 1159 transapical approach), while 10 833 (60%) underwent isolated SAVR. Patients undergoing TAVR were older, more likely to be female, and had more comorbidities. From 2012 to 2015, average LOS declined for both TAVR (6.3 days to 4.6 days; P <0.0001) and SAVR (7.5 days to 6.8 days; P <0.0001), with greater reduction in the TAVR group ( P <0.0001). An increase in home/home health discharge was noted with TAVR (67.7%–77.4%; P <0.0001) but not with SAVR (76.8%–79.5%; P =0.25). After standardizing, patients undergoing TAVR had significantly shorter LOS (change in estimate, −2.93, 95% CI, −3.26 to −2.60) and lower incidence of transfer to skilled nursing facility (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40–0.51) but no difference in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61–1.20) compared with if they had undergone SAVR. As compared with SAVR, patients who had TAVR performed via an endovascular approach had shorter LOS and lower rates of skilled nursing facility transfer, whereas in the transapical cohort, LOS, and skilled nursing facility transfer were similar to SAVR. Conclusions: As compared with if they undergo SAVR, patients undergoing TAVR (by a nontransapical approach) had a shorter LOS and higher likelihood of home discharge, as opposed to skilled nursing facility. From 2012 to 2015, there was a greater trend towards a reduction of LOS and more home discharges among TAVR, as opposed to SAVR. These data have important implications in the era of constrained resources with a growing emphasis on reducing health care costs.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for symptomatic severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients who are at prohibitive surgical risk. Whether age and comorbidities impact the inpatient safety outcomes of TMVR versus surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) is unknown.Methods: Using the national inpatient sample, patients undergoing either elective TMVR or SMVR between 2012 and 2015 were analyzed. Logistic, generalized logistic, and linear regression were used to compare inpatient complications, discharge disposition, and length of stay (LOS). Heterogeneity in the effect of TMVR versus SMVR across Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, categorized as <2 and ≥2) and age (categorized as <75 years old and ≥75 years old) were assessed for effect modification.Results: Overall, 8,716 hospitalizations were included, 7,950 (91%) SMVR and 766 (9%) TMVR. Compared with SMVR, patients undergoing TMVR were older (median age 79 vs. 62 years) and more likely to be female (45% vs. 40%) with a higher CCI score (median CCI 2 vs. 1). Despite being older with a higher comorbidity burden, patients undergoing TMVR had a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.50), cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.92), and major bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47). TMVR patients were also discharged 3 days earlier (CIE −3.26; 95% CI: −3.72, −2.80) and were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55, 0.93). Additionally, the relative reduction in complications after TMVR versus SMVR was significantly higher in older (age ≥75 years) and more comorbid (CCI ≥2) patients (p for interaction <.05 for both). Conclusion:Patients treated with TMVR, as compared with SMVR, were older and had more comorbidities, but had a lower incidence of inpatient complications, shorter Abbreviations: CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; LOS, length of stay; MR, mitral regurgitation; NIS, national inpatient sample; PPM, permanent pacemaker implantation; SMVR, surgical mitral valve repair; TMVR, transcatheter mitral valve repair.Hanumantha R. Jogu and Sameer Arora have contributed equally to this article.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been approved in patients with high or prohibited surgical risk for surgery for treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Prospective studies examining the benefits of TAVR in intermediate risk patients are ongoing. Other smaller studies including lower risk patients have been conducted, but further meta-analysis of these studies is required to draw more broad comparisons.Methods: A Medline search was conducted using standard methodology to search for clinical trials and observational studies including intermediate risk patients. We limited our meta-analysis to studies matching patient populations by propensity scores or randomization and examined clinical outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Conclusions: We conclude that in intermediate risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, the risk of mortality, neurological outcomes, and MI do not appear to be significantly different between TAVR and SAVR. However, there appears to be a significant reduction in risk of acute renal failure at the expense of an increased risk of requiring a permanent pacemaker in low and intermediate risk patients undergoing TAVR compared to SAVR.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Octogenarians have low physiologic reserve and may benefit more from transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( TAVR ) than surgical aortic valve replacement ( SAVR ). Methods and Results This retrospective cohort study based on the National Inpatient Sample included octogenarians who underwent TAVR or SAVR from 2012 to 2015. Crude and standardized‐morbidity‐ratio‐weighted regression models were used to compare in‐hospital outcomes. Among 19 145 TAVR and 9815 SAVR hospitalizations, TAVR patients had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index ( CCI ) scores (2.0 versus 0.8, P <0.0001) than SAVR patients. Before weighting, TAVR was associated with significantly shorter length of stay, more home discharges, and lower incidences of acute kidney injury, bleeding, and cardiogenic shock. Associations were consistent across Charlson Comorbidity Index, except for TAVR being associated with greater length of stay reductions among patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, compared with Charlson Comorbidity Index <2 (change in estimate −3.56 versus −2.61 days, P =0.004). After weighting, TAVR patients had significantly shorter length of stay (change in estimate −3.29 days, 95% CI −3.82, −2.75) and lower odds of transfer to skilled nursing facility (odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.29, 0.41), acute kidney injury (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.45, 0.68), bleeding (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.37, 0.53), and cardiogenic shock (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.33, 0.92), compared with SAVR patients. Odds of permanent pacemaker implantation, transient ischemic attack/stroke, vascular complications, and in‐hospital mortality were not significantly different. Conclusions TAVR may be preferred over SAVR in high‐risk octogenarians because of shorter length of stay, better discharge disposition, and less acute kidney injury, and bleeding. All octogenarians may benefit more from TAVR , irrespective of comorbidity burden, but additional research is needed to confirm our findings.

TF-TAVR is associated with lower 30-day risks of myocardial infarction compared to SAVR. Further studies are required to investigate the role of myocardial injury on overall TF-TAVR outcomes.

No abstract