Bhimani, Ronak

Introduction: The treatment options for high and extreme-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis have changed significantly over the past decade because of advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However new permanent pacemaker implant (PPI) remains an impending concern after TAVR. Hypothesis: We sought to determine the frequency, predictors and outcomes of patients requiring PPI after TAVR. Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database using the ICD-9-CM procedure code of 35.05 for transfemoral/transaortic and 35.06 for transapical replacement of aortic valve .We identified TAVR procedures associated with new permanent pacemaker implants using appropriate validated ICD-9-CM codes. Using multivariate analysis we further identified predictors of PPM implants Results: An estimated 8828 TAVR procedures were performed in United States between 2011-2012. 773 (8.7%) TAVR procedures were associated with PPIs. PPI were higher in older (age>80 years), White race, diabetics, left bundle branch block (LBBB), right bundle branch block (RBBB), transfemoral approach. The inhospital mortality ( 5.2% vs.4.6% ) , mean length of stay ( 9.8 vs. 8.3 days ) disposition to short term nursing facility was higher (38.2% vs. 32.1%) and mean total costs (82217$ vs. 52283$) was higher in TAVR + PPI group . On multivariate analysis, Age in 5 year increment [Odds ratio (OR) 1.11; Confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.17, p<0.001], diabetes [OR 1.26; CI 1.07-1.49, p<0.001], LBBB [OR 1.99; CI 1.55-2.56, p<0.001], RBBB [OR 5.36; CI 3.80-7.55, p<0.001] were independent predictors of PPI. Transfemoral approach was associated with more PPI implants [OR 1.41; CI 1.12 -1.78, p<0.001] Conclusion: Age, baseline conduction system disturbances, diabetes, transfemoral approach emerged as independent predictors of PPI after TAVR. This study provides useful tools to identify high-risk patients for PPI after TAVR.

Introduction: Use of transcatheter endovascular stenting has been increasing in the treatment of Coarctation of Aorta (CoA). The present study was undertaken on adults with CoA undergoing stent placement from the period of 2000 to 2011 to analyze the relationship of hospital volume to the outcomes of stenting in adults with CoA. Methods: We queried Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)’s Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2000 to 2011. Patients with CoA were identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of 747.10. Patients≥18 years of age undergoing endovascular stenting were identified using ICD-9-CM procedure code of 39.90. Hospital volume was divided into two groups with ≥3 and <3 procedures annually. The outcomes studied were procedure-related complications, length of stay (LOS), and cost in relation to the hospital volume. Complications were coded using specific patient safety indicator codes released by HCUP. Length of stay (≤1 and >1 days) and cost (≤ $13,830 and > $13,830) were divided at median and included in regression analysis. Results: No in-hospital death was reported in either group. Hospitals with ≥3 procedures annually had significantly lower incidence of complications (9.50% vs. 23.01%) compared to the hospitals with <3 procedures annually (p=0.002). After multivariate regression analysis, compared to hospitals with <3 procedures annually, the hospitals with ≥3 procedures annually had odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p=0.013) for having any complications, OR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.39-1.17, p=0.15) for having LOS>1 day, and OR of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.45-1.13, p=0.15) for having cost>$13,830. Conclusion: Stenting in adults for aortic coarctation is remarkably safe and the outcomes of the procedure have improved in centers with annual hospital volume of ≥3 procedures, and there is also decreasing trend of procedure-related complications, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs compared to centers with annual volume <3 procedures.

Introduction: Over the past decade, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Patients with liver cirrhosis are at high risk for operative morbidity and mortality when they undergo cardiac surgery. In the present study, in-hospital outcomes are compared in cirrhotic patients undergoing TAVR vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Methods: The study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011 and 2012 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (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 with concomitantly other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis including those with other manifestations of cirrhosis such as portal hypertension and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using chi-square test, fisher’s exact test, and student’s t-test. Results: There were 30 cirrhotic patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each after propensity score matching. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in the SAVR group had higher mean cost of hospitalization ($79,263 vs. $63,913, p=0.12), mean post-procedural length of stay (14.3 days vs. 6.2 days, p<0.01), any complications rate (80.0% vs. 60.0%, p=0.09), rate of transfusion of blood or blood products (56.7% vs. 30.0%, p=0.037) and liver complications rate (20.0% vs. 10.0%, p=0.4). The in-hospital mortality rate was same in both the groups (6.7%). Conclusions: In high-risk cirrhotic patients, TAVR is a viable option for aortic valve replacement compared to SAVR.

ABSTRACTPrior studies have highlighted disparities in cardiac lifesaving procedure utilization, particularly among women and in minorities. Although there has been a significant increase in implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) insertion, socioeconomic disparities still exist in the trend of ICD utilization. With the use of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2003 through 2011, we identified subjects with ICD insertion (procedure code 37.94) and cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (procedure code 00.50, 00.51) as codified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Overall, 1 020 076 ICDs were implanted in the United States from 2003 to 2011. We observed an initial increase in ICD utilization by 51%, from 95 062 in 2003 to 143 262 in 2006, followed by a more recent decline. The majority of ICDs were implanted in men age ≥65 years. Implantation of ICDs was 2.5× more common in men than in women (402 per million vs 163 per million). Approximately 95% of the ICDs were implanted in insured patients, and 5% were used in the uninsured population. There has been a significant increase in ICD implantation in blacks, from 162 per million in 2003 to 291 per million in 2011. We found a significant difference in the volume of ICD implants between the insured and the uninsured patient populations. Racial disparities have narrowed significantly in comparison with those noted in earlier studies and are now more reflective of the population demographics at large. On the other hand, significant gender disparities continue to exist.

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.