Patel, Nilay

Introduction: The data regarding use of different Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices in TAVR is limited. The present study was performed to analyze the complications and outcomes of different MCS in TAVR. Methods: The subjects under study were obtained from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011-12 using ICD-9-CM procedure codes for TAVR and MCS. The use of MCS was divided into Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) including Impella and TandemHeart, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and percutaneous cardiopulmonary support and cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) using ICD-9-CM codes. The incidence of in-hospital mortality and occurrence of procedure related complications were analyzed. Results: Out of total 1794 TAVR procedures, MCS was utilized in 190 (10.6%) procedures. CBP was the most commonly utilized 136 (71.6%) followed by IABP 36 (18.9%), ECMO 14 (7.4%) and 4 (2.1%). In-hospital mortality was highest with use of IABP (36.6%), followed by ECMO (14.3%), CBP (9.6%) and PVAD (0%) with p-value <0.01. The incidence of complications was similar in IABP and PVAD (100% each) followed by ECMO (85.7%) and CBP (59.4%) with p-value <0.01. Conclusion: Being retrospective in design, the present study has no information regarding indications and individual patient related variables in which each of the MCS devices used. Overall, CBP was observed as the most extensive used MCS modality with less mortality (9.6%) and least complications (59.4%).

Introduction: Short-term use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) has the potential to benefit the patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) who may be high-risk or suffer complications. The present study was conducted to address the contemporary use of MCS in TAVR procedures. Methods: The study included a total of 1794 TAVR procedures in the years 2011-2012 from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Use of MCS was identified using ICD-9-CM codes. The patients were divided based on use of MCS devices. The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of stay (LOS) and cost. Multi-variate simple logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of the outcomes. Results: Out of total 1794 TAVR procedures, 190 (10.6 %) utilized a MCS device (MCS group) and 1,604 (89.4%) did not (non-MCS group). The use of MCS devices with TAVR was associated with increase in the in-hospital mortality (14.9% vs. 3.5%, p<0.01) with same results obtained in multi-variate models. The rates of complications were significantly higher in MCS group so as the mean length of stay (11.8±0.8 vs. 8.1±0.2 days, p<0.01) and cost ($68,997±3,656 vs. $55,878±653, p=0.03). Conclusion: Use of MCS in TAVR predicts increase in-hospital mortality, complications, LOS and cost of care.

Introduction: With the technical advancements and expanding indications, utilization of TAVR is on the rise among various institutions in the United States .While appropriate patient selection and better techniques are essential to improving outcomes, the impact of institutional design (or hospital setting) on outcomes with TAVR has yet to be examined. Objective: The objective of our study is to compare TAVR complication rates among teaching vs non-teaching centers in the United States Methods: We used Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project - National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data , the largest all payer database of hospital inpatient stay available in United States, to identify patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent TAVR from Jan-Dec 2012. We constructed multivariable models to determine independent predictors (age, sex, race, Charlson’s comorbidity index, hospital size, hospital location and TAVR approach) of TAVR-associated complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata IC 11.0 (Stata-Corp, College Station, TX). Results: We identified 7,405 TAVR procedures performed in the United States in 2012. 88% of TAVR were performed in teaching centers. There was no difference in mortality following TAVR between teaching and non-teaching centers. The occurrence of any in-hospital complication was lower in teaching centers as compared to non-teaching centers (42% vs. 50%, p<0.001). Rates of individual complications in teaching vs. non-teaching centers are illustrated in the figure. In adjusted analysis, hemorrhage requiring transfusion (13.2% vs. 20.8%, p<0.001), renal complications requiring dialysis (1.2% vs. 2.3%, p=0.009), respiratory complications (7.5% vs. 11%, p<0.001) and complications requiring open-heart surgery (2% vs. 4.6%, p<0.001) were lower in teaching centers as compared to non-teaching centers. Vascular access site complications, pacemaker insertion, pericardial and neurological complications were similar between teaching and non-teaching centers (Figure). Conclusion: Institutional design impacts TAVR complication rates albeit no difference in mortality. In general, complication rates are lower in teaching centers compared to non-teaching centers.

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.