Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients with Aortic Insufficiency.
Aniket S Rali, Siva S Taduru, Lena E Tran, Sagar Ranka, Kelly H Schlendorf, Colin M Barker, Ashish S Shah, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Sandip K Zalawadiya
{"title":"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients with Aortic Insufficiency.","authors":"Aniket S Rali, Siva S Taduru, Lena E Tran, Sagar Ranka, Kelly H Schlendorf, Colin M Barker, Ashish S Shah, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Sandip K Zalawadiya","doi":"10.15420/cfr.2022.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. <b>Methods:</b> The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. <b>Results:</b> Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.</p>","PeriodicalId":33741,"journal":{"name":"Cardiac Failure Review","volume":"8 ","pages":"e30"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4a/cd/cfr-08-e30.PMC9819997.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiac Failure Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2022.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Background: Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. Results: Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). Conclusion: In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.