In‐hospital outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in non‐teaching hospitals

Abstract

Objectives To assess the in‐hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in non‐teaching hospitals. Background TAVR has become widely available in the United States. However, the comparative outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in non‐teaching hospitals are largely under explored. Methods We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2011 to September 2015 to identify those who were 50 years or above and underwent either trans‐arterial TAVR or SAVR at non‐teaching hospital. In‐hospital clinical outcomes were compared with odds ratio (OR) in propensity‐matched cohorts. Results We identified un‐weighted 957 and 7,465 SAVR admissions. In propensity‐matched model, 596 admissions in each arm were included for final analysis. In‐patient mortality (3.9 vs. 2.5%, OR 1.54, P = 0.34), acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (2.2 vs. 2.7%, OR 0.80, P = 0.57), stroke (2.0 vs. 3.2%, OR 0.61, P = 0.20), and pacemaker placement (8.9 vs. 6.4%, OR 1.47, P = 0.09) was similar between TAVR and SAVR. Sub‐group analysis showed that female and those with prior coronary artery bypass surgery had higher risk of in‐patient morality in TAVR admission. Cost was higher (59,103 vs. 53,411 dollars, P = 0.006) but length of stay was shorter in TAVR (6.9 vs. 10.2 days, P < 0.001). Conclusions TAVR conferred similar in‐hospital mortality and major peri‐procedural complications compared with SAVR in non‐teaching hospitals. For those with limited access to teaching hospitals, non‐teaching hospitals appear to be a reasonable option for candidates of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.