Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers Research Articles

Geographic variation in aortic stenosis treatment and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has changed the landscape of aortic stenosis (AS) management. To describe and evaluate geographic variation in AS treatment and outcomes among a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data was conducted on a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 and older with a diagnosis of AS (2015-2018). Estimates of demographic, comorbidity, and healthcare resources were obtained from Medicare claims and the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care at the hospital referral region (HRR), which represents regional tertiary medical care markets. Linear regression was used to explain HRR-level variation in rates of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, and 1-year mortality and readmission rates. A total of 740,899 beneficiaries with AS were identified with a median prevalence of AS of 39.9 per 1000 Medicare beneficiary years. The average HRR-level rate of SAVR was 26.3 procedures per 1000 beneficiary years and the rate of TAVR was 20.3 procedures per 1000 beneficiary years. HRR-level comorbidities and number of TAVR centers were associated with a lower SAVR rate. Demographics and comorbidities explained most of the variation in HRR-level 1-year mortality (15.2% and 18.8%) and hospitalization rates (20.5% and 16.9%), but over half of the variation remained unexplained. Wide regional variation in the treatment and outcomes of AS was observed but were largely unexplained by patient factors and healthcare utilization. Understanding the determinants of AS treatment and outcomes can inform population health efforts for these patients.

Abstract 15414: Driving Distances and Durations to Nearest Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Center for Medicare Beneficiaries Across Continental United States

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly expanding minimally invasive procedure. Although many centers across the continental US offer TAVR, accessibility is a consideration given extensive pre- and post-procedural care. We examined access to TAVR amongst Medicare beneficiaries across the US. Methods: We identified TAVR providers based on clinician billing records for CPT codes 33361-33369 in the 2020 Medicare provider dataset, available from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Residential and practice zip codes were identified from national geopolitical data. Across the US, haversine spherical pairwise straight-line distances were computed between all residential and provider zip codes. Based on proximate residential and provider zip code pairs, we used the Google Distance Matrix API to calculate average driving distance and travel time to providers for all residential zip codes. Results: There were 936 TAVR providers across 409 US zip codes, against a total of 29,089 residential US zip codes. Wyoming had no TAVR providers, while Florida had the most (n=69). Median travel duration (minutes) was lowest in the District of Columbia (20 min) and greatest in Montana (282 min). The median [IQR] traveling distance (miles) to the closest TAVR site was lowest in the Northeast (30 [13-55]) and greatest for the West (84 [29-151]), with the Midwest (46 [24-74]) and South (57 [26-90] in between (p < 0.001). The median [IQR] traveling duration (minutes) showed similar trends to distance (Northeast: (38 [22-66]); Midwest: (52 [30-80]); South: (64 [34-97]); West: 91 [40-158]); p < 0.001); Figure 1 ). 75% of zip codes travel a minimum of 30 minutes to the nearest TAVR provider. Conclusions: There are significant regional differences for TAVR accessibility in the US, with extended travel times of over 1 hour for 1 in 2 US zip codes and over 2 hours for 1 in 7 US zip codes to receive standard care.

Cardiac catheterization, coronary intervention, and wait times for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Prolonged wait times for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The incidence and predictors of short TAVR wait times (STWT: defined as ≤ 30 days from referral to TAVR procedure) have not been defined. This study examined the impact of clinical characteristics, demographics, and pre-TAVR cardiac catheterization on wait times for TAVR. This was a retrospective observational analysis of 831 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR from 2019 to mid-2022 at the University of Vermont Medical Center. Demographics, timing of treatment [stratified by COVID-19 onset (1 March 2020)], TAVR center travel distance, baseline clinical factors, and process-related variables were analyzed to determine univariate STWT predictors (P < 0.10). Multivariable analysis was performed to determine independent STWT predictors. Approximately 50% of TAVR patients in this study achieved a STWT. The proportion of patients with STWT was higher (54.7% vs. 45.2%; P = 0.008) after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. STWT was not related to travel distance (P = 0.61). Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 60% were less likely to achieve STWT compared to patients with LVEF < 40% (OR 0.45, P = 0.003). Patients who required catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before TAVR were significantly less likely to achieve STWT (OR 0.65, P = 0.01). TAVR wait times were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic or single rural TAVR center travel distance. Sicker patients were more likely to achieve STWT while catheterization/PCI before TAVR was associated with longer wait times.

Pro: General Anesthesia Should Be Used for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT (TAVR) is an effective alternative to surgery for many patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.1 As devices and techniques for valve deployment evolve, so makes the anesthetic choice. Most patients undergoing TAVR receive sedation, though nearly a fifth of all TAVR centers in the United States exclusively use general anesthesia (GA).2 Despite the trend toward sedation, the best type of anesthesia for TAVR has yet to be determined.

1050 ULTRASOUND GUIDED CANNULATION OF FEMORAL ARTERY IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Abstract Background Vascular access complications are a significant source of morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Ultrasound-guided cannulation (UGC) of central veins or arteries is a widely used approach for patients undergoing invasive procedures. Whether UGC significantly decreases the risk of vascular access complications also for large-bore access procedures, such as TAVR, lacks evidence Objectives in this study, we aimed to evaluate the benefits of routine use of UGC in patients undergoing TAVR. Methods Data were retrospectively collected from two high-volume TAVR centers from September 2009 to March 2022. UGC was performed using a two-dimensional ultrasound short-axis views, while manual palpation, fluoroscopy, or contralateral angiography were used for the other patients. The odds ratio (OR) for vascular complications was calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including as dependent variables all relevant baseline and procedural characteristics (forward stepwise selection process). Vascular complications were adjudicated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions 3. Results Out of 874 patients included in the study, UGC access was performed in 177 subjects. Overall mean age was 80.2±5.8 years old, 60% of patients were females, 35.5% had diabetes, 61.4% had dyslipidemia, and 27.8% had chronic kidney disease, with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52.7±9.7%. Looking at the procedural variables Euroscore II was 5.8±5.4, second and third valves generation have been used in 85% of the cases, while suture-based closure devices in 84% of subjects. After adjustment for clinical and procedural variables, routinely use of UGC was associated with a lower rate of total [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15% to 0.95%)] and major vascular complications [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.21; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05% to 0.75%)], while no differences were observed for minor vascular complications. Conclusions Routinely use of UGC significantly decreases the risk of vascular complications in patients undergoing TAVR. However, a dedicated randomized clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of this approach is warranted to confirm our results in this high-risk population.

Hospital procedural volume and clinical outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement – US nationwide readmission database, 2016–2019

Abstract Background The number of hospitals offering transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs has increased exponentially in the United States over past several years. Multiple prior studies indicate relationship between hospital volume and clinical outcomes for various cardiac procedures. Purpose The association between the hospital procedural volume and clinical outcomes for TAVR is yet poorly understood. In this study, we aim to examine the in-hospital outcomes after TAVR stratified by hospital volume within a nationally representative, large database. Methods The National Readmission Database (NRD) 2016–2019 was used to identify hospitals with established TAVR programs (performing ≥20 TAVRs/year). Based on annualized procedural volume of transfemoral TAVR, hospitals were stratified into tertiles of low, medium, and high volume TAVR centers. Rates of adverse in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, stroke, vascular complications, and permanent pacemaker), 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission rates were examined. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to compare overall outcomes following TAVR in low-, medium-, and high-volume centers; adjusted for baseline characteristics and comorbidity burden. Results Of 71 million discharge records reviewed, a total of 232,581 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR between 2016–2019. Of all the TAVR cases, 77,183 (33.2%), 75,987 (32.7%), and 79,411 (34.1%) were performed at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals respectively. The median number of annual TAVR procedures was 91, 229, and 456 in low-, medium-, and high-volume centers respectively. Adjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in low-volume (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.21–1.62, p&amp;lt;0.01) and medium-volume (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.11–1.50, p&amp;lt;0.01) hospitals compared with high-volume centers. Similarly, adjusted 30-day mortality (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.27–1.66, p&amp;lt;0.01), 30-day readmission rates (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.05–1.18, p&amp;lt;0.01), and in-hospital cardiac arrest (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08–1.33, p&amp;lt;0.01) were significantly higher for centers in the lowest-volume tertile compared with those in the highest-volume tertile. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (mean, 4.3±6.5 days), in-hospital stroke, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, need for permanent pacemaker, or mechanical circulatory support post-TAVR between the three groups. Conclusion In the United States, an inverse volume-mortality relationship was observed for transfemoral TAVR procedures from 2016 through 2019. Mortality and readmission rates at 30 days post-TAVR were significantly higher at low-volume hospitals compared with high-volume hospitals. Further research focusing at establishing protocols and standardized training programs may help mitigate the discrepancy in TAVR outcomes amongst hospitals with discrepant procedural volume. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Temporal Trends in Internal vs. External Referrals for TAVR in a Large Academic Center: Patients Characteristics and Outcomes.

Background Since transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) first became approved for inoperable patients followed by high, intermediate-, and low-risk patients, referrals to TAVR centers have rapidly increased. The purpose of this study was to investigate referral patterns to a large academic TAVR center in the state of North Carolina and evaluate differences between externally and internally referred patients. Methods Data for all patients who underwent TAVR at our institution between November 2014 and March 2020 were pulled from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The electronic medical record was used to determine the referral source. The descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington). Results 491 patients underwent TAVR at our institution between November 2014 and March 2020. Half of the patients were referred by a cardiologist within the same health system (N = 250, 50.9%). Other referral sources included a cardiologist external to the health system (N = 210, N = 42.8%) and a surgeon or proceduralist (such as urologist, surgeon, or gastroenterologist) during the workup for another procedure (N = 26, 5.3%). Over time, there was a trend toward an increasing proportion of patients referred by a cardiologist external to our system, but this trend did not reach statistical significance (20.0% in 2014, 29.2% in 2015, 30.7% in 2016, 53.0% in 2017, 36% in 2018, 48.4% in 2019, and 56.8% in 2020, p=0.06 using the Mann–Kendall trend test). Externally referred patients were less likely to have private insurance and were more likely to have a reduced ejection fraction and had a higher mean gradient across the valve. Postprocedure, externally referred patients were more likely to have the procedure under moderate sedation and less likely to be discharged home. Conclusions This study presents the referral pattern to a large TAVR center in North Carolina. Over time, there was an increase in external referrals suggesting that TAVR is increasingly adopted as an important component of the management of aortic valve stenosis. Internally and externally referred patients have differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics which may have an impact on clinical outcomes.

Trends, Predictors, and Outcomes of 30-Day Readmission With Heart Failure After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the US Nationwide Readmission Database.

BACKGROUNDData on trends, predictors, and outcomes of heart failure (HF) readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain limited. Moreover, the relationship between hospital TAVR discharge volume and HF readmission outcomes has not been established.METHODS AND RESULTSThe Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify 30‐day readmissions for HF after TAVR from October 1, 2015, to November 30, 2018, using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐10‐CM) codes. A total of 167 345 weighted discharges following TAVR were identified. The all‐cause readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was 11.4% (19 016). Of all the causes of 30‐day rehospitalizations, HF comprised 31.4% (5962) of all causes. The 30‐day readmission rate for HF did not show a significant decline during the study period (P trend=0.06); however, all‐cause readmission rates decreased significantly (P trend=0.03). HF readmissions were comparable between high‐ and low‐volume TAVR centers. Charlson Comorbidity Index >8, length of stay >4 days during the index hospitalization, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic HF, preexisting pacemaker, complete heart block during index hospitalization, paravalvular regurgitation, chronic kidney disease, and end‐stage renal disease were independent predictors of 30‐day HF readmission after TAVR. HF readmissions were associated with higher mortality rates when compared with non‐HF readmissions (4.9% versus 3.3%; P<0.01). Each HF readmission within 30 days was associated with an average increased cost of $13 000 more than for each non‐HF readmission.CONCLUSIONSDuring the study period from 2015 to 2018, 30‐day HF readmissions after TAVR remained steady despite all‐cause readmissions decreasing significantly. All‐cause readmission mortality and HF readmission mortality also showed a nonsignificant downtrend. HF readmissions were comparable across low‐, medium‐, and high‐volume TAVR centers. HF readmission was associated with increased mortality and resource use attributed to the increased costs of care compared with non‐HF readmission. Further studies are needed to identify strategies to decrease the burden of HF readmissions and related mortality after TAVR.

Recent Developments and Current Status of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Practice in Latin America - the WRITTEN LATAM Study.

ResumoFundamento:Implante transcateter de valva aórtica (TAVI) é um procedimento adotado em todo o mundo e suas práticas evoluem rapidamente. Variações regionais e temporais são esperadas.Objetivo:Comparar a prática de TAVI na América Latina com aquela no resto do mundo e avaliar suas mudanças na América Latina de 2015 a 2020.Método:A pesquisa foi realizada em centros de TAVI em todo o mundo entre março e setembro de 2015, e novamente nos centros latino-americanos entre julho de 2019 e janeiro de 2020. As seguintes questões foram abordadas: i) informação geral sobre os centros; ii) avaliação pré-TAVI; iii) técnicas do procedimento; iv) conduta pós-TAVI; v) seguimento. As respostas da pesquisa dos centros latino-americanos em 2015 (LATAM15) foram comparadas àquelas dos centros no resto do mundo (WORLD15) e ainda àquelas da pesquisa dos centros latino-americanos de 2020 (LATAM20). Adotou-se o nível de significância de 5% na análise estatística.Resultados:250 centros participaram da pesquisa em 2015 (LATAM15=29; WORLD15=221) e 46 na avaliação LATAM20. No total, foram 73.707 procedimentos, sendo que os centros WORLD15 realizaram, em média, 6 e 3 vezes mais procedimentos do que os centros LATAM15 e LATAM20, respectivamente. Os centros latino-americanos realizaram menor número de TAVI minimalista do que os do restante do mundo, mas aumentaram significativamente os procedimentos menos invasivos após 5 anos. Quanto à assistência pós-procedimento, observaram-se menor tempo de telemetria e de manutenção do marca-passo temporário, além de menor uso de terapia dupla antiplaquetária nos centros LATAM20.Conclusão:A despeito do volume de procedimentos ainda significativamente menor, muitos aspectos da prática de TAVI nos centros latino-americanos evoluíram recentemente, acompanhando a tendência dos centros dos países desenvolvidos.

Influence of center surgical aortic valve volume on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ObjectiveThe utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology has exceeded that of traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition, the role of minimum surgical volume requirements for TAVR centers has recently been disputed. The present work evaluated the association of annual institutional SAVR caseload on outcomes following TAVR. MethodsThe 2012-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for elective TAVR hospitalizations. The study cohort was split into early (Era 1: 2012-2015) and late (Era 2: 2016-2018) groups. Based on restricted cubic spline modeling of annual hospital SAVR caseload, institutions were dichotomized into low-volume and high-volume centers. Multivariable regressions were used to determine the influence of high-volume status on in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications following TAVR. ResultsAn estimated 181,740 patients underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2018. Nationwide TAVR volume increased from 5893 in 2012 to 49,983 in 2018. After adjustment for relevant patient and hospital factors, high-volume status did not alter odds of TAVR mortality in Era 1 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; P = .52) but was associated decreased likelihood of mortality in Era 2 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; P = .047). High-volume status did not influence the risk of perioperative complications during Era 1. However, during Era 2, patients at high-volume centers had significantly lower odds of infectious complications, relative to low-volume hospitals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; P = .002). ConclusionsSAVR experience is associated with improved TAVR outcomes in a modern cohort. Our findings suggest the need for continued collaboration between cardiologists and surgeons to maximize patient safety.

Does the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement impact inpatient outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement? Analysis of the national inpatient sample

Abstract Background With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS) has experienced a paradigm shift, altering patient selection for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over the past decade. What remains to be determined is the impact of a hospital's ability to offer TAVR, in the contemporary era, on inpatient outcomes following SAVR. Purpose The goal of this study was to assess inpatient mortality and the use of mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) in patients undergoing SAVR at TAVR versus non-TAVR centers in the United States. Methods The National Inpatient Sample (2011–18), a probability sample of inpatient visits in the United States, was used to study trends in admissions for SAVR at TAVR and non-TAVR centers; in-hospital mortality was trended over time. Survey estimation commands were used to determine weighted national estimates. Results There were 559,365 inpatient visits for SAVR with 75.2% (95% CI 74.2%-76.2%) and 24.7% (95% CI 23.8%-25.8%) receiving bioprosthetic SAVR (bAVR) and mAVR, respectively at TAVR centers and 64.5% (95% CI 63.3%-65.6%) and 35.5% (95% CI 34.4%-36.7%) receiving bAVR and mAVR, respectively at non-TAVR centers. SAVR recipients at non-TAVR centers were older when compared to recipients at TAVR centers (68.3±0.09 vs 66.9±0.11 years p&amp;lt;0.001). Heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, peripheral vascular disorders, complicated hypertension and diabetes, renal failure and liver disease were more common in patients undergoing SAVR at TAVR-centers. During the study period, both crude (OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.73–0.83) and adjusted (OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.73–0.86) inpatient mortality was lower amongst SAVR recipients at TAVR centers. The utilization rates of mAVR at both TAVR and non-TAVR centers decreased over time amongst all age groups (p trend &amp;lt;0.001). Conclusions Patients undergoing SAVR at TAVR centers were younger and had more co-morbidities compared to patients undergoing SAVR at non-TAVR centers. Although patients undergoing SAVR at TAVR centers had significantly more co-morbidities, inpatient mortality was lower at TAVR centers compared to non-TAVR centers. Further research is needed to determine whether the impact of a multidisciplinary cardiac approach resulted in significant differences in patient selection for SAVR, due to the availability of TAVR, influencing patient outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the State of Connecticut

BackgroundAlthough prior national reports have identified trends in the underutilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Afro-American and Latino populations, racial and ethnic healthcare disparities in TAVR use in the State of Connecticut have not been previously reported. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 1461 patients undergoing TAVR at our institute between from 2012 to 2020. Baseline demographics, procedural characteristics, clinical outcomes, median incomes and insurance coverage were compared between 1417 Caucasian and 44 minority patients, including 23 patients designated as Afro-American and 10 designated as Latino. Demographics of TAVR utilization at our institution were further compared to 6 additional Connecticut TAVR centers using Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) ChimeData detailing hospital discharges for DRG 266 and 267. ResultsIn comparison to Caucasian patients, minority cohorts were younger (75.7 ± 9.0 vs 81.5 ± 5.1 years, p < 0.001) and had more co-morbidities including diabetes (64% vs 34%, p < 001), coronary artery disease (95% vs 78%, p = 0.039), end stage renal disease requiring dialysis (9% vs 3%, p = 0.009) and atrial fibrillation (77% vs 62%, p = 0.041). The two groups did not differ with respect to other risk factors or co-morbidities, baseline echocardiographic or CTA findings, STS risk score, or procedural technique. Minority patients had a longer length of hospital stay (9.5 ± 9.0 vs 6.4 ± 6.9 days, p = 0.003), but did not differ with respect to procedural complications. Socioeconomic differences between the two groups included lower median incomes and higher rates of Medicaid or no insurance coverage for minority versus Caucasian patients. CHA ChimeData revealed a similar underutilization of TAVR in minority subgroups in the remaining 6 Connecticut TAVR centers. ConclusionsDespite statewide demographics describing 10.7% and 15.7% of the total population as Afro-American and Latino, respectively, only 3.0% of the total TAVR procedures performed at a large Connecticut health care facility were performed in minority subgroups. Despite having a higher burden of co-morbidities, minority patients had similar outcomes compared to Caucasian patients. Similar racial and ethnic disparities in TAVR utilization were confirmed statewide using CHA ChimeData.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation andItsImpact on Mortality.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) on mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). MR is common in patients undergoing TAVR. Data on optimal management of patients with significant MR after TAVR are limited. The registry consisted of 16 TAVR centers (n=7,303). Outcomes of patients with≥ moderate versus lesser grade MR after TAVR were compared. In 1,983 (27.2%) patients, baseline MR grade was≥ moderate. MR regressed in 874 (44.1%) patients and persisted in 1,109 (55.9%) after TAVR. Four-year mortality was higher for those with MR persistence, but not for those with MR regression after TAVR, compared with nonsignificant baseline MR (43.8% vs. 35.1% vs. 32.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; p=0.008; HR: 1.02; p=0.383, respectively). New York Heart Association functional class III to IV after TAVR was more common in those with MR persistence vs. regression (14.4% vs. 3.9%; p<0.001). In a propensity score-matched cohort (91 patients' pairs), with significant residual MR after TAVR who did or did not undergo staged mitral intervention, staged intervention was associated with a better functional class through 1 year of follow-up (82.4% vs. 33.3% New York Heart Association functional class I or II; p<0.001), and a numerically lower 4-year mortality, which was not statistically significant (64.6% vs. 37.5%; HR: 1.66; p=0.097). Risk stratification based on improvement in MR and symptoms after TAVR can identify patients at increased mortality risk after TAVR. These patients may benefit from a staged transcatheter mitral intervention, but this requires further proof from future studies. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274).

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Non–Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers: Implications for Tier-Based Systems of Care

BackgroundWith wide expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and dissemination of multidisciplinary-based approaches to care, societies are discussing the implementation of a tier system to valve centers. This study explores the impact of tier-based systems of care on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes at institutions that perform SAVR only. MethodsMedicare beneficiaries undergoing SAVR procedures from 2012 to 2015 were included. The SAVR hospitals were stratified into either tier A, valve centers with a TAVR program; or tier B, valve centers without a TAVR program. Adjusted survival, assessed by multivariable Cox regression, controlled for program type and patient risk profile. Time-dependent analysis accounted for hospitals that initiated a TAVR program during the study period. ResultsOverall, there were 562 tier A and 485 tier B SAVR hospitals. Tier A hospitals had significantly higher comorbidity burden compared with tier B hospitals (all P < .05) but had significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (3.2% vs 4.1%) and 1-year mortality (8.1% vs 9.4%; both P < .05). After risk stratification, tier B hospitals had significantly worse 30-day mortality compared with tier A hospitals for all patient risk-profiles, except for the low-risk patients (P < .01). These findings persisted in the time-dependent analysis. Adjusted midterm survival was higher in tier A vs tier B hospitals. ConclusionsLow-risk patients can safely undergo SAVR in both tier level hospitals without compromising outcomes. Establishment of quality of care measures, especially in the SAVR-only hospitals, remains paramount and should be closely integrated when designing tier-based systems for aortic valve replacement care.

Effect of institutional transcatheter aortic valve replacement volume on mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We sought to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine the association between institutional transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) volume and all-cause mortality. Since inception in 2011, there has been an exponential increase in the number of TAVR centers across the world. Multiple studies have questioned if a relationship exists between institutional TAVR volume and patient outcomes. We performed a systematic literature search for relevant articles using a combination of free text terms in the title/abstract related to volume, TAVR, and patient outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts for eligibility based on pre-specified criteria. All-cause mortality data was pooled from eligible studies and centers were categorized as low-(30-50 cases), intermediate-, or high-volume (75-130 cases) based on their annual TAVR volumes. Our search yielded an initial list of 11,153 citations, 120 full text studies were reviewed and 7 studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding a total of 1,93,498 TAVRs. Categorized according to center's annual volume; 25,062 TAVRs were performed in low-, 77,093 in intermediate- and 91,343 in high-volume centers. Network meta-analysis showed a relative reduction in mortality rates of 37%, 23% and 19%, for high volume versus low volume centers, high volume versus intermediate volume centers and intermediate versus low volume centers, respectively. Existing research clearly shows an inverse relationship between annual TAVR procedural volume and all-cause mortality. We need to focus on development of strong referral networks and consolidation rather than expansion of existing TAVR centers to improve patient outcomes, while ensuring adequate access-to-care.

Transcarotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures have increased dramatically over the last decade; so too have the number of TAVR centers. While a percutaneous femoral artery approach is the access of choice, many patients have peripheral artery disease that prohibits access despite newer smaller diameter TAVR delivery systems. It is imperative for TAVR programs to have a preferred alternative access technique. The transcarotid approach is advantageous because the surgical skills and endovascular techniques required should be familiar to most surgeons, and when not, are, in our experience, readily obtainable. Here we provide a detailed description of the technical aspects of our approach to transcarotid TAVR.

Abstract 14989: Failure to Rescue After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Does Experience Matter?

Introduction: Volume-outcome relationships are well defined in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but little is known about how hospital experience in aortic valve replacement (AVR) informs processes of care to rescue patients once a complication occurs after TAVR. Hypothesis: Increasing AVR experience improves post-TAVR rates of failure to rescue (FTR) - defined as in-hospital mortality after major treatable post-procedural complications. Methods: Statewide Inpatient Databases from seven diverse states were queried from 2011 to 2017 for patients who underwent TAVR. Hospitals were stratified as low vs high-volume by mean annualized SAVR and TAVR volume using the median as cutoff: SAVR = 43 cases/year, TAVR = 28 cases/year. Crude rates of complications, in-hospital mortality, and FTR were estimated for the overall sample and stratified by SAVR and TAVR volume (low vs high). Logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of SAVR and TAVR volume, independently, on the outcomes above, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbid conditions. Results: A total of 42,025 TAVR patients were identified and categorized as low (N = 2,946) or high-volume (N = 39,079) SAVR centers, and low (N = 7,183) or high-volume (N = 34,842) TAVR centers. Within the high-volume SAVR centers, 84.8% were also high-volume TAVR centers. Low SAVR or TAVR volume was associated with a marginal increase in the risk of developing complications after TAVR (OR 1.26; P &lt; 0.001 and OR 1.14; P &lt; 0.001) as show in Table 1. There was no statistically significant difference in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates (OR 1.10; P = 0.499 and OR 1.10; P = 0.273) or FTR rates (OR 0.97; P = 0.816 and OR 1.03; P = 0.732) after TAVR between low- and high-volume SAVR or TAVR centers, respectively. Conclusion: Undergoing TAVR at a high-volume SAVR or TAVR center was associated with lower rates of complications, but volume was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality or FTR.

Impact of postdischarge care fragmentation on clinical outcomes and survival following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of postdischarge care fragmentation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Atotal of 266 patients undergoing TAVR due to severe aortic stenosis were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were assigned to one of two groups based on presence (n = 104) and absence (n = 162) of postdischarge care fragmentation. Fragmented care was defined as at least one readmission to asite other than the implanting TAVR center within 90days. Prognostic impact of care fragmentation on clinical outcomes and predictors of long-term mortality were investigated. Increased major vascular complication (16.3 vs 8.0%, p = 0.037), permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4 vs 6.2%, p = 0.025), and acute kidney injury (22.1 vs 14.2%, p < 0.001) were reported in the fragmented care group. Although early mortality (6.7 vs 4.3%, p = 0.152) was similar between groups, there was asignificant difference in 5‑year mortality (66.3 vs 45.7%, p < 0.001). In aunivariate regression analysis fragmented care, age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and paravalvular leakage were significantly associated with 5‑year mortality. Fragmented care (hazard ratio [HR] 1.510, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.080-2.111; p = 0.016), age (HR 1.024, 95% CI 1.001-1.048; p = 0.045), paravalvular leakage (HR 1.863, 95% CI 1.076-3.228; p = 0.026), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.616, 95% CI 1.114-2.344; p = 0.012) were found to be significant independent predictors of 5‑year mortality in amultivariate analysis, after adjusting for other risks. Fragmented care has asignificant prognostic impact on clinical outcomes and survival.

The Association of In-Hospital Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Availability on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been performed more and more frequently in elderly patients with aortic stenosis. We investigated the association of in-hospital availability of TAVR on outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the era of TAVR.Methods and Results:We utilized data from the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database. Between October 2013 and December 2016, 9,330 patients aged ≥80 years underwent isolated SAVR or SAVR with coronary artery bypass grafting in 557 centers in Japan. We assessed the associations of in-hospital TAVR availability with operative mortality and composite complications adjusting for each patient's characteristics, JapanSCORE predicted the risk scores, and hospital volumes of SAVR using generalized estimation equation methods. Observed operative mortality rates were 3.4% in all centers, 2.0% in TAVR centers and 4.0% in non-TAVR centers. The multivariable analyses showed that TAVR centers had statistically significantly lower operative mortality compared with non-TAVR centers among all patients (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.89, P=0.01) and among intermediate/high-risk patients (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.85, P<0.01) but not among low-risk patients (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.44-1.51, P=0.52). In-hospital TAVR availability was associated with better outcomes of SAVR among elderly patients. This association was statistically significant among intermediate/high-risk patients but not significant among low-risk patients.

Geographic Access to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers in the United States

Geographic access to transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) centers varies in the United States as a result of controlled expansion through minimum volume requirements. To describe the current geographic access to TAVR centers in the United States. Observational study from June 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. United States census data were used to describe access to TAVR center. Google Maps and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were used to describe characteristics of patients undergoing successful TAVR according to proximity to implanting center. The study analyzed 47 527 537 individuals 65 years and older in the United States and 31 098 patients who underwent successful transfemoral TAVR, were linked to fee-for-service Medicare, and had a measurable driving time. Median driving distance to a TAVR center. Among 40 537 zip codes in the United States, 490 (1.2%) contained a TAVR center, and among 305 hospital referral regions (HRR), 234 (76.7%) contained a TAVR center. Of the 31 749 patients who underwent successful transfemoral TAVR and were linked to fee-for-service Medicare, 31 098 had a measurable driving time. Mean (SD) age was 82.4 (6.9) years, 14 697 patients (47.3%) were women, and 7422 (23.87%) lived in a rural area. This translated to 1 232 568 of 47 527 537 individuals (2.6%) 65 years and older living in a zip code with a TAVR center and 43 789 169 (92.1%) living in an HRR with a TAVR center. Among 31 749 patients who underwent successful transfemoral TAVR and were linked to fee-for-service Medicare, 31 098 had a measurable driving time. All of these patients (100.0%) underwent their procedure in a TAVR center within their HRR, with 1350 (4.3%) undergoing TAVR in a center within their home zip code. Median driving time to implanting TAVR center was 35.0 minutes (IQR, 20.0-70.0 minutes), ranging from 2.0 minutes to 18 hours and 48 minutes. Most US individuals 65 years and older live in an HRR with a TAVR center. Among patients undergoing successful transfemoral TAVR, median driving time to implanting center was 35.0 minutes. Within the context of the US health care system, where certain advanced procedures and specialized care are centralized, TAVR services have significant penetration. More studies are required to evaluate the effect of geographic location of TAVR sites on access to TAVR procedures among individuals with an indication for a TAVR within the US population.