Key result
Undergoing TAVR at high-volume SAVR centers was associated with a decreased likelihood of in-hospital mortality in the 2016-2018 era compared to low-volume centers (adjusted OR 0.83; P=0.047).
Why the study?
TAVR utilization has exceeded SAVR, but the role of minimum surgical volume requirements for TAVR centers has recently been disputed.
Does high institutional SAVR volume improve in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications in patients undergoing elective TAVR?
Cohort (n=181,740)
Yes
Does high institutional SAVR volume improve in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications in patients undergoing elective TAVR?
Odds Ratio: 0.83
p-value: p=.047
Higher institutional surgical aortic valve replacement volume is associated with improved in-hospital mortality and fewer infectious complications for patients undergoing TAVR in the modern era.
Higher SAVR-volume centers were associated with lower TAVR mortality; leaves open whether volume mandates should inform TAVR center requirements.
ObjectiveThe utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology has exceeded that of traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition, the role of minimum surgical volume requirements for TAVR centers has recently been disputed. The present work evaluated the association of annual institutional SAVR caseload on outcomes following TAVR.MethodsThe 2012-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for elective TAVR hospitalizations. The study cohort was split into early (Era 1: 2012-2015) and late (Era 2: 2016-2018) groups. Based on restricted cubic spline modeling of annual hospital SAVR caseload, institutions were dichotomized into low-volume and high-volume centers. Multivariable regressions were used to determine the influence of high-volume status on in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications following TAVR.ResultsAn estimated 181,740 patients underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2018. Nationwide TAVR volume increased from 5893 in 2012 to 49,983 in 2018. After adjustment for relevant patient and hospital factors, high-volume status did not alter odds of TAVR mortality in Era 1 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; P = .52) but was associated decreased likelihood of mortality in Era 2 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; P = .047). High-volume status did not influence the risk of perioperative complications during Era 1. However, during Era 2, patients at high-volume centers had significantly lower odds of infectious complications, relative to low-volume hospitals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; P = .002).ConclusionsSAVR experience is associated with improved TAVR outcomes in a modern cohort. Our findings suggest the need for continued collaboration between cardiologists and surgeons to maximize patient safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gandjian et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=181,740). High-volume SAVR center vs. Low-volume SAVR center was evaluated on In-hospital mortality following TAVR (Era 2: 2016-2018) (adjusted OR 0.83, p=.047). Undergoing TAVR at high-volume SAVR centers was associated with a decreased likelihood of in-hospital mortality in the 2016-2018 era compared to low-volume centers (adjusted OR 0.83; P=0.047).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: