Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume Research Articles

Impact of surgical aortic valve replacement volume on tamponade after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Impact of surgical aortic valve replacement volume on tamponade after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Changing Surgical Aortic Valve Size and Choices in the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Era

Objective. The adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has changed the profile of patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and drawn more attention to valve sizing and durability. We examined the influence of TAVR on SAVR practice. Methods. Using a statewide database, we evaluated all isolated SAVRs, categorized into three eras: pre-TAVR (2008 to 2011), early TAVR (2012 to 2015), and current-TAVR (2016 to 2022). The primary outcomes of interest were changes in prosthetic valve size and the percentage of mechanical valves used between time periods. Results. There were 6,445 patients included. SAVR volume declined in the current era. Valve size increased over time. In the pre-TAVR era, 41% of patients received a valve smaller than 23 mm, which declined to 33% in the early TAVR era, then to 22% in the current era (p < 0.001 for all). The year of surgery was significantly associated with larger valve selection even after controlling for patient characteristics. Annular enlargement rose in the current-TAVR era (p < 0.001). The use of mechanical valves rose in the current era (p < 0.001 compared to early TAVR). Regression analysis showed that the year of surgery was not predictive of mechanical valve use, suggesting that changes in practice were driven by patient characteristics. Conclusion. Surgical valve choice since the adoption of TAVR has changed, with less frequent use of smaller valves. Increases in mechanical valve usage are likely a reflection of changing patient population.

Regional Variation in the Use and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in California

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been widely adopted for management of aortic stenosis. The purpose of this study was to examine regional access to and outcomes following TAVR in California. MethodsPatients undergoing TAVR or isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) from 2008 to 2019 in California were identified in the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database. California was divided into seven regions: Northern California, San Francisco Bay Area, Central California, Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Orange, and San Diego. Regional TAVR volumes were normalized to Medicare beneficiaries or isolated SAVR volume. Outcomes included risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE). Trends were studied using non-parametric tests, and regional outcomes using logistic regression. ResultsTAVR volume increased annually since 2011, with 7148 cases performed in California in 2019. After normalization, variation in utilization of TAVR was evident, with the least performed in Central California. TAVR to SAVR ratios in 2019 were greatest in Northern California, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and least in the Inland Empire. After risk adjustment, there were no significant regional differences in 30-day mortality, but lower 30-day MACCE in the San Francisco Bay Area. ConclusionsRegional differences in TAVR utilization exist, with limited access in Central California and the Inland Empire, but risk-adjusted outcomes are similar. Efforts to reach underserved areas through existing program expansion or regional referrals may distribute transcatheter technology more equitably across California.

Introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology increases overall aortic valve surgical volume: Evaluating the Florida experience

ObjectiveTranscatheter aortic valve replacement technology is increasingly used for aortic valve stenosis. We sought to evaluate the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology with respect to overall surgical aortic valve replacement volume in Florida. MethodsThe 2010–2019 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration data set was queried. Difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on the total aortic valve surgical volume of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus nonperforming hospitals. Length of stay and elements of charges were compared for the raw and 1:1 propensity matched data. ResultsA total of 46,032 surgical aortic valve procedures were performed at 88 hospitals. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement performing hospitals experienced a 21% increase in total aortic valve surgical volume. Length of stay was significantly less for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Propensity matched transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients had less gross total charges. ConclusionIntroduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology significantly increased overall surgical aortic valve volume and may be associated with less gross total hospital charges.

Association of Volume and Outcomes in 234 556 Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundThe relationship between institutional volume and operative mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains unclear. MethodsFrom January 2013 to June 2018, 234 556 patients underwent isolated SAVR (n = 144 177) or SAVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 90 379) within the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. The association between annualized SAVR volume (group 1 [1-25 SAVRs], group 2 [26-50 SAVRs], group 3 [51-100 SAVRs], and group 4 [>100 SAVRs]) and operative mortality and composite major morbidity or mortality was assessed. Random effects models were used to evaluate whether historical (2013-2015) SAVR volume or risk-adjusted outcomes explained future (2016-2018) risk-adjusted outcomes. ResultsThe annualized median number of SAVRs per site was 35 (interquartile range, 22-59; isolated aortic valve replacement [AVR], 20; AVR with CABG, 13). Among isolated SAVR cases, the mean operative mortality and composite morbidity or mortality were 1.5% and 9.7%, respectively, at the highest-volume sites (group 4), with significantly higher rates among progressively lower-volume groups (P trend < .001). After adjustment, lower-volume centers had increased odds of operative mortality (group 1 vs group 4 [reference]: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for SAVR, 2.24 [95% CI, 1.91-2.64]; AOR for SAVR with CABG, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.67-2.30]) and major morbidity or mortality (AOR for SAVR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.39-1.69]; AOR for SAVR with CABG, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.32-1.61]) compared with the highest-volume institutions. Substantial variation in outcomes was observed across hospitals within each volume category, and prior outcomes explained a greater proportion of hospital operative outcomes than did prior volume. ConclusionsOperative outcomes after SAVR with or without CABG is inversely associated with institutional procedure volumes; however, prior outcomes are more predictive of future outcomes than is prior volume. Given the excellent outcomes observed at many lower-volume hospitals, procedural outcomes may be preferable to procedural volumes as a quality metric.

Surgeons and Administrators Co-creating Value.

Surgeons and Administrators Co-creating Value.

Variablity of Mechanical or Tissue Valve Implantation in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Spain: National Retrospective Analysis from 2007 to 2018.

Background: There is no robust evidence regarding the types of valves implanted among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Spain. Methods: All cases of patients undergoing SAVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting from January 2007 to December 2018 in the public Spanish National Health System were included. We analyzed the trends of SAVR volume, risk profile and type of implanted valve across time and place. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with biological SAVR. Results: In total, 62,870 episodes of SAVR in 15 Spanish territories were included. In 35,693 (56.8%), a tissue valve was implanted. The annual volume of procedures increased from 107.3/million (2007) to 128.6 (2017). In 2018, it fell to 108.5. Age increased and Charlson’s comorbity index worsened throughout the study period. Tissue valve implantation increased in most regions. After adjusting for other covariates, we observed a high variability in aortic valve implantation across different regions, with differences of as much as 20-fold in the use of tissue valves. Conclusions: Between 2007 and 2018, we detected a significant increase in the use of bioprostheses in patients undergoing SAVR in Spain, and a great variability in the types of valve between the Spanish territories, which was not explained by the different risk profiles of patients.

Trends in Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States (2012–2017)

As the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) expands to varying patient populations, impacting the landscape of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), this study sought to assess volume and performance trends of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the United States during 2012-2017. The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for patients who underwent endovascular/transapical TAVI, isolated SAVR, or complex aortic valve surgery between 2012 and 2017. Temporal trends in annual case volume, admission costs, in-hospital outcomes, and 30-day readmission were evaluated. Of 624,303 patients (median age 72 years) who received AVR, 387,011 (62%) were men. Among these patients, 170,521 (27%) underwent TAVI and 453,782 (73%) underwent SAVR with 299,398 isolated and 154,384 complex aortic valve surgery. TAVI patients were significantly older and higher risk compared with SAVR patients. From 2012 to 2017, the annual number of TAVI increased from 8,295 to 55,168 whereas SAVR volume remained remarkably stable. Patients who underwent AVR demonstrated significant improvements in mortality, stroke, duration of hospitalization, and 30-day readmission. In conclusion, this large contemporary analysis reports the considerable growth of AVR in the United States. It remains unequivocal that the treatment of aortic stenosis is improving overall with reduced mortality following AVR, highlighting the effectiveness of various process improvements such as newer valves, enhanced patient selection, and the interdisciplinary Heart Team approach.

Sustitución valvular aórtica convencional aislada en España: tendencias nacionales de riesgo, tipo de prótesis y mortalidad entre 1998 y 2017

Introduction and objectivesTo help to illustrate the trends in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Spain, we performed a national-level analysis to investigate the changes from 1998 to 2017 in a) SAVR volume, b) patients’ risk profiles, c) in-hospital mortality, and d) types of aortic valve prostheses. MethodsWe included all episodes of patients undergoing isolated SAVR from January 1998 to December 2017 recorded in the Minimum Basic Data Set (Ministry of Health, Consumer Affairs, and Social Welfare, Spain). The study duration was divided into four 5-year periods. We analyzed the trends in SAVR volume, comorbidity prevalence, and in-hospital mortality. Through multivariate logistic regression, we identified factors associated with mortality and type of prosthesis. The risk-adjusted mortality rate was compared over the study period. ResultsIn total, 73 668 patients underwent an isolated SAVR from 1998 to 2017. The annual volume of procedures increased from 16 363 between 1998 and 2002 to 22 685 between 2013 and 2017. The prevalence of all investigated comorbidities increased, except for history of previous myocardial infarction and unplanned admission. The Charlson comorbidity index worsened from 1998-2002 (2.3; SD, 1.4) to 2013-2017 (3.6; SD, 1.7) (P <.001). In-hospital mortality decreased from 7.2% to 3.3% (P <.001) while the risk-adjusted mortality index improved from 1.3 to 0.7. The proportion of bioprostheses increased from 20.7% (1998-2002) to 59.6% (2013-2017) (P <.001). ConclusionsWe detected an increase in the annual SAVR volume in Spain, with more patients receiving bioprostheses. Despite an increased risk profile of the patients, in-hospital mortality substantially reduced.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en

Isolated aortic valve replacement in Spain: national trends in risks, valve types, and mortality from 1998 to 2017

Introduction and objectivesTo help to illustrate the trends in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Spain, we performed a national-level analysis to investigate the changes from 1998 to 2017 in a) SAVR volume, b) patients’ risk profiles, c) in-hospital mortality, and d) types of aortic valve prostheses. MethodsWe included all episodes of patients undergoing isolated SAVR from January 1998 to December 2017 recorded in the Minimum Basic Data Set (Ministry of Health, Consumer Affairs, and Social Welfare, Spain). The study duration was divided into four 5-year periods. We analyzed the trends in SAVR volume, comorbidity prevalence, and in-hospital mortality. Through multivariate logistic regression, we identified factors associated with mortality and type of prosthesis. The risk-adjusted mortality rate was compared over the study period. ResultsIn total, 73 668 patients underwent an isolated SAVR from 1998 to 2017. The annual volume of procedures increased from 16 363 between 1998 and 2002 to 22 685 between 2013 and 2017. The prevalence of all investigated comorbidities increased, except for history of previous myocardial infarction and unplanned admission. The Charlson comorbidity index worsened from 1998-2002 (2.3; SD, 1.4) to 2013-2017 (3.6; SD, 1.7) (P <.001). In-hospital mortality decreased from 7.2% to 3.3% (P <.001) while the risk-adjusted mortality index improved from 1.3 to 0.7. The proportion of bioprostheses increased from 20.7% (1998-2002) to 59.6% (2013-2017) (P <.001). ConclusionsWe detected an increase in the annual SAVR volume in Spain, with more patients receiving bioprostheses. Despite an increased risk profile of the patients, in-hospital mortality substantially reduced.

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine whether hospital surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) volume was associated with corresponding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes. BackgroundRecent studies have demonstrated a volume-outcome relationship for TAVR. MethodsIn total, 208,400 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were analyzed for all aortic valve replacement procedures from 2012 to 2015. Claims for patients <65 years of age, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, other heart valve procedures, or other major open heart procedures were excluded, as were secondary admissions for aortic valve replacement. Hospital SAVR volumes were stratified on the basis of mean annual SAVR procedures during the study period. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year post-operative TAVR survival. Adjusted survival following TAVR was assessed using multivariate Cox regression. ResultsA total of 65,757 SAVR and 42,967 TAVR admissions were evaluated. Among TAVR procedures, 21.7% (n = 9,324) were performed at hospitals with <100 (group 1), 35.6% (n = 15,298) at centers with 100 to 199 (group 2), 22.9% (n = 9,828) at centers with 200 to 299 (group 3), and 19.8% (n = 8,517) at hospitals with ≥300 SAVR cases/year (group 4). Compared with group 4, 30-day TAVR mortality risk-adjusted odds ratios were 1.32 (95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.47) for group 1, 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 1.39) for group 2, and 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 1.25) for group 3. These adjusted survival differences in TAVR outcomes persisted at 1 year post-procedure. ConclusionsTotal hospital SAVR volume appears to be correlated with TAVR outcomes, with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality observed at low-volume centers. These data support the importance of a viable surgical program within the heart team, and the use of minimum SAVR hospital thresholds may be considered as an additional metric for TAVR performance.

Association Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined.ResultsAmong the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89).Conclusions and RelevanceHospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.

Trends in Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement According to Hospital-Based Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Volumes

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the trends in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures across hospitals with different transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) volumes among Medicare beneficiaries. BackgroundThe volume of TAVR has increased in the United States since its approval, now exceeding that of isolated SAVR. MethodsHospitalizations of adults (≥18 years of age) with International Classification of Diseases-9th Revision-Clinical Modification procedure codes for SAVR (35.21 or 35.22) or TAVR (35.05 or 35.06) who were included in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014, were included. Trends in isolated SAVR patient characteristics, procedural volumes, and outcomes by quartile (Q) of hospital-level TAVR use were assessed over the study period. ResultsA total of 37,705 isolated SAVR procedures were analyzed for the study. The annual volume of isolated SAVR procedures decreased in hospitals performing the largest number of TAVR procedures (Q3: 1,557 in 2011 to 1,391 in 2014; and Q4: 2,607 in 2011 to 1,791 in 2014). Thirty-day and 1-year mortality after SAVR also declined over the study period in hospitals with the largest TAVR volume (annual change rate in mortality for Q3: −16.4%; p < 0.001; Q4: −20.8%; p < 0.001). ConclusionsThe advent of TAVR was associated with a reduction in isolated SAVR volumes, a decrease in comorbidities among patients undergoing SAVR, and corresponding reductions in observed short- and long-term SAVR mortality among hospitals performing the greatest number of TAVRs.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Episode Payments and Relationship to Case Volume

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased in volume as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Comparisons of total episode expenditures, although largely ignored thus far, will be key to the value proposition for payers. We evaluated 6,359 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing TAVR (17 hospitals, n= 1,655) or SAVR (33hospitals, n= 4,704) in Michigan between 2012 and 2016. Payments through 90 post-discharge days between TAVR and SAVR were price-standardized and risk-adjusted. Centers were divided into terciles of procedural volume separately for TAVR and SAVR, and payments were compared between lowest and highest terciles. Payments (± SD) were higherfor TAVR than SAVR ($69,388 ± $22,259 versus $66,683 ± $27,377, p < 0.001), while mean hospital lengthof stay was shorter for TAVR (6.2 ± 5.6 versus 10.2+ 7.5 days, p < 0.001). Index hospitalization payments were $4,374 higher for TAVR (p < 0.001), whereas readmission and post-acute care payments were $1,150 (p= 0.001) and $739 (p= 0.004) lower, respectively, and professional payments were similar. For SAVR, high-volume centers had lower episode payments (difference: 5.0%, $3,255; p= 0.01) and shorter length of stay (10.0 ± 7.5 versus 11.1 ± 7.9 days, p= 0.002) than lowvolume centers. In contrast, we found no volume-payment relationship among TAVR centers. Episode payments were higher for TAVR, despite shorter length of stay. Although not a driver for TAVR, center SAVR volume was inversely associated with payments. These data will be increasingly important to address value-based reimbursement in valve replacement surgery.

Evolving trends in aortic valve replacement: A statewide experience.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at intermediate, high, and extreme risk for mortality from SAVR. We examined recent trends in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in Michigan. The Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative (MSTCVS-QC) database was used to determine the number of SAVR and TAVR cases performed from January 2012 through June 2017. Patients were divided into low, intermediate, high, and extreme risk groups based on STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM). TAVR patients in the MSTCVS-QC database were also matched with those in the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry to determine their Heart Team-designated risk category. During the study period 9517 SAVR and 4470 TAVR cases were performed. Total annual AVR volume increased by 40.0% (from 2086 to 2920), with a 13.3% decrease in number of SAVR cases (from 1892 to 1640) and a 560% increase in number of TAVR cases (from 194 to 1280). Greater than 90% of SAVR patients had PROM ≤8%. While >70% of TAVR patients had PROM ≤ 8%, they were mostly designated as high or extreme risk by a Heart Team. During the study period, SAVR volume gradually declined and TAVR volume dramatically increased. This was mostly due to a new group of patients with lower STS PROM who were designated as higher risk by a Heart Team due to characteristics not completely captured by the STS PROM score.

Impact of Transcatheter Technology on Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume, Outcomes, and Cost

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a disruptive technology that is rapidly expanding in use. We evaluated the effect on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patient selection, outcomes, volume, and cost. A total of 11,565 patients who underwent SAVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (2002 to 2015), were evaluated from the Virginia Cardiac Services Quality Initiative database. Patients were stratified by surgical era: pre-TAVR era (2002 to 2008, n= 5,113), early-TAVR era (2009 to 2011, n= 2,709), and commercial-TAVR era (2012 to 2015, n= 3,743). Patient characteristics, outcomes, and resource utilization were analyzed by univariate analyses. Throughout the study period, statewide SAVR volumes increased with median volumes of pre-TAVR: 722 cases/year, early-TAVR: 892 cases/year, and commercial-TAVR: 940 cases/year (p= 0.005). Implementation of TAVR was associated with declining Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality among SAVR patients (3.7%, 2.6%, and 2.4%; p < 0.0001), despite increasing rates of comorbid disease. The mortality rate was lowest in the current commercial-TAVR era (3.9%, 4.3%, and 3.2%; p= 0.05), and major morbidity decreased throughout the time period (21.2%, 20.5%, and 15.2%; p<0.0001). The lowest observed-to-expected ratios for both occurred in the commercial-TAVR era (0.9 and 0.9, respectively). Resource utilization increased generally, including total cost increases from $42,835 to $51,923 to $54,710 (p < 0.0001). At present, SAVR volumes have not been affected by the introduction of TAVR. The outcomes for SAVR continue to improve, potentially due to availability of transcatheter options for high-risk patients. Despite rising costs for SAVR, open approaches still provide a significant cost advantage over TAVR.

The Midterm Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Michigan

We characterized the midterm impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) volume, patient profiles, and outcomes in Michigan. We analyzed data obtained after SAVR (n= 15,288) and TAVR (n= 1,783) using the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Quality Collaborative from 2006 to 2015. During this period, 17 of 33 hospitals developed TAVR programs. Annual SAVR volume increased by 38.1% at TAVR hospitals and by 20.4% at non-TAVR hospitals, (ptrend < 0.001). In TAVR hospitals, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) decreased before (4.7% ± 5.1%) and after (3.5% ± 3.6%) initiation of TAVR (p < 0.001). Rates of 30-day mortality (pre-TAVR, 3.9% vs post-TAVR, 2.7%; p < 0.001) and renal failure (pre-TAVR, 5.2% vs post-TAVR, 3.3%; p < 0.001) butnot stroke (pre-TAVR, 1.9% vs post-TAVR, 1.7%; p= 0.47) were lower after TAVR implementation. Length of stay decreased from 9.0 to 8.5 days (p < 0.001). When analyzing high-risk patients undergoing SAVR (ie, PROM >8%), neither mortality, stroke, nor renal failure was different (all p > 0.15). Despite a reduction in the STS-PROM, non-TAVR hospitals did not display changes in mortality, stroke, or renal failure for either the entire or the high-risk SAVR cohorts after initiation of TAVR in Michigan. TAVR implementation in Michigan has dramatically increased overall SAVR volume. This phenomenon has occurred with a concomitant decrease in preoperative risk profile and has improved early SAVR outcomes, particularly at TAVR hospitals, but surprisingly not in patients considered at high preoperative risk. As TAVR use increases, these issues may be further clarified and elucidated.

Changes in Risk Profile and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement From the Pre– to Post–Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Eras

With initiation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs, centers may see changes in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) populations and related outcomes because of more high-risk patients undergoing TAVR rather than SAVR. Little data exist on the potential changes in the risk profiles and outcomes of SAVR patients from the pre- to post-TAVR eras. As such, this study sought to evaluate changes in the SAVR population at a tertiary referral center after TAVR program initiation. Using a single-center valve surgical database, annual volume, patient characteristics, operative details, and predicted and observed mortality for patients undergoing isolated SAVR or SAVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from 2006 to 2013 were evaluated. Patients were divided into 3 eras: (1) pre-TAVR (January 2006-June 2009), (2) transition (July 2009-March 2011), and (3) TAVR (April 2011-June 2013). The primary analysis compared predicted and observed mortality in pre-TAVR and TAVR eras. From 2006 to 2013, 1,380 SAVR patients were identified, with 505 (36.6%), 330 (23.9%), and 545 (39.5%) patients from the pre-TAVR, transition, and TAVR eras, respectively. SAVR case volume increased from 131 to 256 cases per year (95.4% increase) from the pre-TAVR to the post-TAVR eras. Predicted risk of mortality (PROM) for SAVR patients from the pre-TAVR to TAVR eras by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-PROM was stable near 3.8% (p = 0.82). Crude 30-day SAVR mortality trended down from 2.8% in the pre-TAVR era to 1.5% in the post-TAVR era (p = 0.23). Consistent with previous studies, initiation of a TAVR program was associated with increased SAVR volume. Risk profiles for SAVR patients in the TAVR era remained similar by the STS-PROM, indicating generally stable risk among surgical patients after launching a TAVR program. These data suggest that significant changes in the risk profiles of SAVR patients should not be expected with the initiation of a TAVR program. Further research will need to reevaluate these changes once TAVR becomes more widely available.

The Association of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Availability and Hospital Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Mortality in the United States

Whether the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has affected hospitals' surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and overall aortic valve replacement (AVR) case volumes and outcomes in the United States is unknown. We utilized data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) adult cardiac surgery database and the STS/American College of Cardiology (ACC) transcatheter valve therapies registry to examine SAVR and TAVR procedures. Temporal trends in total case volume (SAVR plus TAVR), and observed and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates were assessed among low-risk cases (STS predicted risk of operative mortality < 4%), intermediate-risk cases (4% to 8%), and high-risk cases (> 8%). A contemporary control was provided by non-TAVR centers. From 2008 to 2013, the total annual volume of AVR among 246 TAVR-performing hospitals increased from 19,578 to 33,004, with a 22% growth in SAVR volumes; non-TAVR hospital (n= 555) increases were more modest (16,563 to 19,134; 16% growth). Expanded volumes at TAVR hospitals included increased SAVR use in low- and intermediate-risk cases, and TAVR use in high-risk cases. In parallel, in-hospital mortality for all AVR procedures at TAVR sites declined from 3.4% to 2.9% (observed to expected [O:E] ratio 0.75 to 0.58, p < 0.001); the greatest declines were among intermediate- and high-risk SAVR patients. Owing to reduced SAVR mortality, TAVR centers experienced a significantly greater decline in O:E ratio for high-risk patient in-hospital mortality than non-TAVR centers (TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.81 to 0.61; non-TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.85 to 0.76; p < 0.001). After approval of TAVR for clinical use, a trend toward higher in-hospital mortality rates and O:E ratios for TAVR procedures was observed at new (but not at established) TAVR centers (O:E ratio, 0.41 to 0.67; p= 0.08). Since the introduction of TAVR, the total volume of AVR procedures, including higher overall use of SAVR, at TAVR sites has significantly increased in the United States. Overall, in-hospital survival of patients undergoing treatment for aortic valve stenosis continues to improve.