Back to Authors

Eng, Marvin

0000-0002-0334-6504

Mayo Clinic

Center for Structural Heart Disease, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.

Citations 1

Association of peripheral artery disease with in‐hospital outcomes after endovascular transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Mohananey, Divyanshu , Villablanca, Pedro , Ando, Tomo , Wang, Dee Dee , Wiley, José , Eng, Marvin H. , Shah, Binita , Saucedo, Jorge , Bhatt, Deepak L. , Ando, Tomo , Wang, Dee Dee , Eng, Marvin , Ramakrishna, Harish , Bhatt, Deepak L , Shah, Binita , Gupta, Tanush , Ranka, Sagar , Bhatia, Nirmanmoh , Adegbala, Oluwole Muyiwa , Kalra, Ankur , O’Neill, William W.

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | April 26, 2019 | Volume: 94 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 249-255

10.1002/ccd.28310 Get It

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its association with in‐hospital outcomes after endovascular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (EV‐TAVR).BackgroundTAVR is an established treatment for patients at prohibitive, high, or intermediate surgical risk. PAD is a significant comorbidity in the determination of surgical risk. However, data on association of PAD with outcomes after EV‐TAVR are limited.MethodsPatients in the National Inpatient Sample who underwent EV‐TAVR between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015 were evaluated. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 51,685 patients underwent EV‐TAVR during the study period. Of these, 12,740 (24.6%) had a coexisting diagnosis of PAD. The adjusted odds for in‐hospital mortality [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.83–1.41)], permanent pacemaker implantation [OR 0.98 (0.85–1.14)], conversion to open aortic valve replacement [OR 1.05 (0.49–2.26)], or acute myocardial infarction [OR 1.31(0.99–1.71)] were not different in patients with versus without PAD. However, patients with PAD had greater adjusted odds of vascular complications [OR 1.80 (1.50–2.16)], major bleeding [OR 1.20 (1.09–1.34)], acute kidney injury (AKI) [OR 1.19 (1.05–1.36)], cardiac complications [aOR 1.21 (1.01–1.44)], and stroke [OR 1.39(1.10–1.75)] compared with patients without PAD. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for patients with PAD [7.23 (0.14) days vs. 7.11 (0.1) days, p < 0.001].ConclusionOf patients undergoing EV‐TAVR, ~25% have coexisting PAD. PAD was not associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality but was associated with higher risk of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, stroke, cardiac complications, and longer LOS.