Patel, Samir

ObjectivesTo compare the in‐hospital outcomes in cirrhosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundOver the last 10 years, TAVR has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high‐risk patients. Cirrhosis patients have a high risk of operative morbidity and mortality while undergoing cardiac surgery. This study's hypothesis was that TAVR is a safer alternative compared to SAVR in cirrhosis patients.MethodsThe study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011–2012 using ICD‐9‐CM procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients <50 years of age and those who concomitantly underwent other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests.ResultsThere were 30 patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in SAVR group had significantly higher rate of transfusion of whole blood or blood products (p = 0.037), longer mean postprocedural length of stay (p = 0.006), and nonsignificantly higher mean cost of hospitalization (p = 0.2), any complications rate (p = 0.09), and liver complications rate (p = 0.4). In‐hospital mortality rate was same in the both the groups. No patients in the TAVR group required open‐heart surgery or cardiopulmonary bypass.ConclusionTAVR could be a viable option for aortic valve replacement in cirrhosis patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ObjectivesWe studied the trends and predictors of drug eluting stent (DES) utilization from 2006 to 2011 to further expound the inter‐hospital variability in their utilization.BackgroundWe queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2006 and 2011 using ICD‐9‐CM procedure code, 36.06 (bare metal stent) or 36.07 (drug eluting stents) for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Annual hospital volume was calculated using unique identification numbers and divided into quartiles for analysis.Methods and ResultsWe built a hierarchical two level model adjusted for multiple confounding factors, with hospital ID incorporated as random effects in the model. About 665,804 procedures (weighted n = 3,277,884) were analyzed. Safety concerns arising in 2006 reduced utilization DES from 90% of all PCIs performed in 2006 to a nadir of 69% in 2008 followed by increase (76% of all stents in 2009) and plateau (75% in 2011). Significant between‐hospital variation was noted in DES utilization irrespective of patient or hospital characteristics. Independent patient level predictors of DES were (OR, 95% CI, P‐value) age (0.99, 0.98–0.99, <0.001), female(1.12, 1.09–1.15, <0.001), acute myocardial infarction(0.75, 0.71–0.79, <0.001), shock (0.53, 0.49–0.58, <0.001), Charlson Co‐morbidity index (0.81,0.77–0.86, <0.001), private insurance/HMO (1.27, 1.20–1.34, <0.001), and elective admission (1.16, 1.05–1.29, <0.001). Highest quartile hospital (1.64, 1.25–2.16, <0.001) volume was associated with higher DES placement.ConclusionThere is significant between‐hospital variation in DES utilization and a higher annual hospital volume is associated with higher utilization rate of DES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.