Abstract 18193: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Over the past decade, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Patients with liver cirrhosis are at high risk for operative morbidity and mortality when they undergo cardiac surgery. In the present study, in-hospital outcomes are compared in cirrhotic patients undergoing TAVR vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Methods: The study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011 and 2012 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients<50 years of age and those with concomitantly other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis including those with other manifestations of cirrhosis such as portal hypertension and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using chi-square test, fisher’s exact test, and student’s t-test. Results: There were 30 cirrhotic patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each after propensity score matching. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in the SAVR group had higher mean cost of hospitalization ($79,263 vs. $63,913, p=0.12), mean post-procedural length of stay (14.3 days vs. 6.2 days, p<0.01), any complications rate (80.0% vs. 60.0%, p=0.09), rate of transfusion of blood or blood products (56.7% vs. 30.0%, p=0.037) and liver complications rate (20.0% vs. 10.0%, p=0.4). The in-hospital mortality rate was same in both the groups (6.7%). Conclusions: In high-risk cirrhotic patients, TAVR is a viable option for aortic valve replacement compared to SAVR.