Takagi, Hisato

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.