O’Gara, Patrick T.

Importance Sex-related disparities affect diagnosis, referral, and prognosis of aortic valvular diseases. Contemporary US data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by sex are limited. Objective To characterize 10-year trends in TAVI use, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, stratified by sex. Design, Setting, and Participants This nationwide, retrospective, population-based cohort study used US Medicare claims data from fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged after TAVI from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. The median follow-up time was 2.19 (IQR, 0.94-3.79) years. Exclusions included patients who had concomitant valve surgery, infective endocarditis, valve-in-valve TAVI, transapical TAVI, TAVI for pure aortic insufficiency, or later conversion to Medicare Advantage. Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2024, and April 1, 2025. Exposure TAVI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural mortality, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and hazard ratios (AHRs) with 95% CIs were estimated. Results The study included 314 123 patients (141 233 women [45.0%] and 172 890 men [55.0%]). Women were older than men (mean [SD] age, female: 80.3 [7.8] years; male: 79.4 [7.7] years; standardized mean difference, 12%). The proportion of female patients who underwent TAVI declined from 47.6% in 2013 to 43.6% in 2022 ( P < .001). Compared with men, women had higher periprocedural mortality (2.5% vs 2.2%; AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), vascular complications (5.8% vs 3.6%; AOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.60-1.71]), and bleeding (10.4% vs 6.8%; AOR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.62-1.71]) but less PPI (16.9% vs 20.0%; AOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.82]). Long-term mortality was lower in female patients (AHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.93), although their risks of HF hospitalization, AMI, stroke, and bleeding were higher. Conclusions and Relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries, women constituted a progressively declining proportion of patients treated with TAVI, experienced more periprocedural complications, and demonstrated modestly better long-term survival compared with men. Further work is needed to understand factors influencing these trends and to refine sex-specific strategies for optimal outcomes.

This Viewpoint discusses the use of aortic valve intervention vs watchful waiting for patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis.

Background: Shock is a highly dreaded complication of type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD). However, few data exist on its incidence and association with prognosis. Methods: We evaluated 2704 TAAAD patients [mean age 61.4 ± 14.5, (67.6%) male] from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. Results: Shock was present at arrival in 407 (15.1%) TAAAD patients. These patients demonstrated no difference in age (61.5 ± 15.2 with shock vs. 61.4 ± 14.4 years without; p=0.873), but were more likely to have history of hypertension (83.1% vs. 73.0%; p<0.001), atherosclerosis (36.5% vs. 21.7%, p<0.001) and diabetes (12.3% vs. 7.0%, p=0.001) than patients without shock. They had more surgical management (90.9% vs. 86.0%; p=0.007). In-hospital complications such as hypotension (49.8% vs. 28.6%; p<0.001), coma (11.4% vs. 5.8%; p<0.001), tamponade (33.6% vs. 18.2%; p<0.001) and myocardial ischemia/infarction (19.7% vs. 13.7%; p=0.006) were more common among shock patients. Overall in-hospital mortality (30.2% vs. 23.9%; p=0.007) and mortality by management (surgical: 24.6% vs. 19.1%; p=0.015; medical: 88.9% vs. 53.3%, p<0.001) were higher among shock patients. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in shock patients are displayed in Table 1. Among hospital survivors, Kaplan-Meier estimates of follow-up mortality were similar between groups (p=0.609). Conclusions: Shock occurred in 15.1% of patients with TAAAD and was associated with increased in-hospital morbidity and mortality, but not long-term mortality.

Introduction/Purpose: To examine trends in patient presentation, diagnosis and outcomes of acute aortic dissection over 15 years since the original report from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Methods: Patient data were collected at 28 international referral centers from 1996 up to the present. Trends were analyzed among 3275 patients divided according to date of enrollment into 6 equal groups and by Type: A (n=2110) or B (n=1165). Results: There was no change over time in the presenting complaints of severe or worst ever pain for Type A and Type B (90% and 96%, respectively), or in the incidence of chest pain ( 80% in Type A and 70% in Type B, respectively), with considerable overlap in chest vs. back pain between types. The report of pulse deficits did not change over time, present in 30% of Type A patients. Normal chest X-ray on presentation increased in Type A acute aortic dissection (AoD) from 13.7% to 31.3% over time (p-value for trend <0.001). In Type B the report of normal chest X-ray increased from 19.9% to 40.9% (p-value for trend <0.001). There were significant trends in initial imaging modalities for Type A: increased use of CT (from 49.4% to 71.6%, p-value for trend <0.001) and decreased use of TEE (from 45.3% to 25.4%, p-value for trend <0.001). For Type B, use of CT increased from 77.2% to 88.4% (p-value for trend .013). A decrease in overall mortality over time was significant for both Type A and Type B patients (see graph). Surgical mortality in Type A patients fell from 25.3% to 16.5% (p-value for trend 0 .003). Conclusions: No significant difference was seen over time in pain severity, chest pain, and presence of pulse deficits. The incidences of a normal chest X-ray, originally thought to be uncommon in dissection cases, increased over time to 30% in Type A and 40% in Type B AoD. Use of CT as the initial imaging modality increased for both Type A and Type B. Lastly, a significant decrease in overall mortality was seen for both Type A and Type B patients.

Abstract Objective Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. Subjects and Methods Cohort and case‐crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. Results The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40–52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62–119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.53, p < 0.0001). Case‐crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65–5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18–21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. Conclusions Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high‐risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

Background: The debate for the optimal treatment of complicated Type B Acute Aortic Dissection (TBAAD) is primarily focused upon open surgical intervention versus thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The technique of fenestration with stenting has been proposed to resolve malperfusion. This study evaluated post-procedural outcomes of all three approaches for TBAAD. Methods: TBAAD patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection were stratified by management type: TEVAR, fenestration and stenting, and surgery. Results: Of the 552 patients with TBAAD, 231 (41.8%) underwent TEVAR, 214 (38.8%) standard open surgery, and 107 (19.4%) fenestration and stenting. TEVAR or fenestration and stenting were more likely to be performed in classic double barrel aortic dissection when compared to open surgery (73.2%, 76.6%, 52.8% respectively; p<0.001). Patients treated with open repair were less likely to have distal extension into the abdominal aorta than those with TEVAR or fenestration and stenting (47.7%, 62.7%, 86.4%, respectively; p<0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar between groups (11.7% TEVAR, 14.0% fenestration and stenting, 15.9% surgery). At five years, Kaplan-Meier post-discharge all-cause survival estimates were highest for TEVAR, followed by endovascular fenestration and finally open surgical intervention (85.2%, 78.3%, 67.2%, respectively; p=0.039). Conclusion: Patients treated by endovascular approaches, whether with flap fenestration or thoracic endovascular aortic repair, had lower five year mortality when compared to patients who required open repair in the setting of TBAAD. Either endovascular approach may be helpful in the treatment of TBAAD. Further research is needed to determine how much of the observed difference represents patient selection versus differential effects of treatment.