Ando, Tomo

Background: Prior studies have shown that hospital case volume is not associated with survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, how case volume impact on survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is unknown Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in the U.S. 2005-2011 to identify cases in which in-hospital CPR was performed for IHCA. Years > 2011 were excluded due to redesign of NIS that precludes case volume calculation. Restricted cubic spine was used to evaluate the association between hospital annual CPR volume and survival to hospital discharge. Further analysis was conducted with case volume in quartiles. Results: Across more than 1000 hospitals in NIS, we identified 137,466 cases (mean age 67, 45% female) of IHCA for which CPR was performed over the study period. Median [Q1, Q3] case volume was 68 [34, 100]. Compared to those in the 1 st quartile (q1) of case volume, hospitals in the 4 th quartile (q4) tends to have younger patients (mean=66 vs 68 yrs), higher comorbidities (median Elixhauser score=4 vs 3), large bed size (89 vs 37%), and in low income areas (37 vs 32%). After adjustment for patient and hospital factors, higher hospital case volume was inversely associated with lower rates of survival (Fig1). Risk-adjusted rates of survival from q1 through q4 were: 28.1%, 25.5%, 25.4% and 23.7%. We arrived at similar results when analysis was stratified by age, gender and hospital bed size (not shown) except that the difference across quartiles was more pronounced among small bed size hospitals (survival rate=27.4% in q1 vs 8.1% in q4). However, among those who survived to hospital discharge, nonroutine home discharge was higher among patients in q1 (73.9%) vs q4 (69.6%) Conclusion: Unlike OHCA, hospital case volume is inversely associated with survival to hospital discharge in patients undergoing CPR for IHCA. Hence, quality measures to reduce the incidence of CPR/IHCA have the potential to reduce in-hospital mortality

Objective To estimate the risk of in-hospital complications after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in relationship with comorbidity burden. Methods Cohort-based observational study using the US National Inpatient Sample database, 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2017. The main outcome of interest was the occurrence of in-hospital major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, cardiac complications and postprocedural stroke. Comorbidity burden and thromboembolic risk were assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Elixhauser Comorbidity Score (ECS) and CHA2DS2-VASc score. MAE were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The associations of comorbidity with in-hospital MAE were evaluated using logistic regression models. Results A total of 3294 hospitalisations were identified, among these, the mean age was 75.7±8.2 years, 60% were male and 86% whites. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3±1.5 and 29.5% of the patients had previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. The mean CCI and ECS were 2.2±1.9 and 9.7±5.8, respectively. The overall composite rate of in-hospital MAE after LAAC was 4.6%. Females and non-whites had about 1.5 higher odds of in-hospital AEs as well participants with higher CCI (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.19, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.24, p<0.001), ECS (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.08, p<0.001) and CHA2DS2-VASc score (aOR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.15, p=0.01) were significantly associated with in-hospital MAE. Conclusion In this large cohort of LAAC patients, the majority of them had significant comorbidity burden. In-hospital MAE occurred in 4.6% and female patients, non-whites and those with higher burden of comorbidities were at higher risk of in-hospital MAE after LAAC.

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.

AbstractObjectivesTo assess the in‐hospital mortality and complications in female between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundFemale is one of the risk factors for increased adverse events in cardiac surgery.Methods and resultsNationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2011 to 2014 for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR in female patients. The primary endpoint was in‐hospital all‐cause mortality and second endpoints were perioperative complications. We performed a propensity score analysis to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for each outcome. Patients who had concomitant cardiac surgery and those who had TAVR or SAVR mainly for aortic regurgitation were excluded. Our query from 2011 to 2014 resulted in a total of 3,067 TAVR and 18,594 SAVR in female patients. TAVR patients were in general elder and had a higher burden of comorbidities. The primary endpoint was similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.2% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.0, P = 0.89). Compared to SAVR, female TAVR patients had less hemorrhage requiring transfusion (12% vs. 21%, OR 0.41, P < 0.001), perioperative cardiac arrest and nonfatal myocardial infarction (9.8% vs. 17%, OR 0.38, P < 0.001), respiratory complication (1.6% vs. 4.4%, OR 0.28, P < 0.001), post‐op sepsis (1.7% vs. 2.9%, OR 0.65, P = 0.03), acute myocardial infarction (3.0% vs. 4.9%, OR 0.60, P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (15% vs. 18%, OR 0.62, P < 0.001). Conversely, female TAVR patients had significantly increased risk of new pacemaker implantation (11% vs. 5.9%, OR 1.7, P < 0.001) and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.66% vs. 0.24%, OR 2.8, P < 0.001). TAVR patients had less nonroutine discharge. The median hospital cost was significantly higher in TAVR than SAVR (median $51,274 vs. $43,677, P < 0.001) but the length of stay was shorter (mean 7.8 days vs. 10.5 days).ConclusionsTAVR may be a better option for those patients with underlying comorbidities that predispose them at higher risk for complications that was less observed in TAVR group. However, higher cost and increased risk of need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, although rare, should be taken into consideration upon deciding the optimal mode for aortic valve replacement.

AbstractBackgroundTo assess the impact of post transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) mild paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) on mortality. More than moderate PVR after TAVI has decreased with the advent of new‐generation prosthetic valves. However, mild PVR remains common and its clinical impact has been inconsistent. We aimed to assess the impact of mild PVR through meta‐analysis.Methods and ResultsA systematic literature search was conducted through PUBMED and EMBSE. Manuscripts that reported hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for clinical outcome of interest (all‐cause and cardiac mortality) has been included. Random‐effects model was used for calculation of HR. A total of 25 articles including total of 21,018 patients were finally included for quantitative synthesis (meta‐analysis). Our pooled analysis demonstrated higher all‐cause mortality in patients with mild PVR compared to none/trivial PVR (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.11–1.43, I2=45%, p < 0.001) (follow up duration range 6 months to 5 years). Significant heterogeneity among studies was observed (p for heterogeneity = 0.005). Egger's test showed no evidence of publication bias. Cardiovascular mortality was increased in patients with mild PVR compared with none/trivial PVR (HR 1.28, 95%CI 1.05–1.57, I2=8%, p = 0.02) (follow up duration range 1–3 years).ConclusionsMild PVR was associated with increased all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality after TAVI. Whether further interventions in mild PVR is of benefit, has yet to be determined.

AbstractObjectivesTo summarize the published data of combined transcatheter aortic and mitral valve intervention (CTAMVI).BackgroundCTAMVI, a combination of either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve (TAViV) and transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve/valve‐in‐ring (TMViV/ViR), or percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) is an attractive alternative in high‐surgical risk patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease. However, its procedural details and clinical outcomes have not been well described.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of all the published articles from PUBMED and EMBASE.ResultsA total of 37 studies with 60 patients were included. The indication for CTAMVI was high or inoperable surgical risk and symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (92%) or severe aortic regurgitation (8%) combined with moderate to severe/severe mitral stenosis (30%) or moderate/severe mitral regurgitation (65%) or both (5%). In majority of the cases, aortic valve intervention was performed prior to the mitral valve. Mortality rate were 25% for TAVR + TMVR (range 42 days to 10 months), 17% for TAVR + TMViV/ViR (range 13 days to 6 months), 0% for TAViV + TMViV/ViR (range 6–365 days), and 15% for TAVR/ViV + PMVR (range 17 days to 419 days). Significant (more than moderate) paravalvular regurgitation post‐procedure was rare.ConclusionsCTAMVI appears to confer reasonable clinical outcome. Further large study is warranted to clarify the optimal strategy, procedural details and clinical outcomes in the future.

AbstractBackgroundEvidence suggests that medical service offerings vary by hospital teaching status. However, little is known about how these translate to patient outcomes. We therefore sought to evaluate this gap in knowledge in patients undergoing Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States.MethodsThis study was conducted using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in the United States from 2011 to 2014. Teaching status was classified, as teaching vs. nonteaching and endpoints were clinical outcomes, length of stay and cost. Procedure‐related complications were identified via ICD‐9 coding and analysis was performed via mixed effect model.ResultsAn estimated 33,790 TAVR procedures were performed in the U.S between 2011 and 2014, out of which 89.3% were in teaching hospitals. Mean (SD) age was 81.4 (8.5) and 47% were females. There was no significant difference between teaching versus nonteaching hospitals in regards to the primary outcome of in‐hospital mortality and secondary outcomes of several cardiovascular and other end points except for a high rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 1.04–1.72]) and lower rate for use of mechanical circulatory support devices in teaching vs. nonteaching centers. The mean length of stay was significantly higher in teaching hospitals (7.7 days) vs. nonteaching hospitals (6.8 days) (P = 0.002) and so was the median cost of hospitalization (USD 50,814 vs. USD 48, 787, P = 0.02) for teaching vs. nonteaching centers.ConclusionMost TAVR related short‐term outcomes including all cause in‐hospital mortality are about the same in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. However, AKI, length of hospital stay and TAVR related cost were significantly higher in teaching than nonteaching hospitals. There was more use of mechanical circulatory support in nonteaching than teaching hospitals.