Why the study?
Safety-net hospitals treat many uninsured and low-income patients and have reported worse outcomes in prior studies, but TAVR results at these centers remain limited.
Does TAVR performed at safety-net hospitals compared to non-safety net hospitals result in different post-procedural mortality and complication rates?
Does TAVR performed at safety-net hospitals compared to non-safety net hospitals result in different post-procedural mortality and complication rates?
TAVR performed at safety-net hospitals yields comparable post-procedural clinical outcomes to non-safety-net hospitals, supporting the safe expansion of TAVR access to vulnerable populations.
TAVR outcomes appear similar at safety-net hospitals; leaves open whether expanded access improves equity without compromising care.
OBJECTIVE: To compare post-procedural outcomes of trans-catheter valve replacement (TAVR) among safety-net (SNH) and non-safety net hospitals (non-SNH). BACKGROUND: SNH treat a large population of un-insured and low income patients; prior studies report worse outcome at these centers. Results of TAVR at these centers is limited. METHODS: Adults undergoing TAVR at hospitals in the US participating in the National In-patient sample (NIS) database from January 2014 to December 2015 were included. A 1:1 propensity-matched cohort of patients operated at SNH and non-SNH institutions was analyzed, on the basis of 16 demographic and clinical co-variates. Main outcome was all-cause post-procedural mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, acute kidney injury and length of post-operative stay. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2015, 41,410 patients (mean age 80 ± 0.11 years, 46% female) underwent TAVR at 731 centers; 6,996 (16.80%) procedures were performed at SNH comprising 135/731 (18.4%) of all centers performing TAVR. SNH patients were more likely to be female (49% vs. 46%, p < .001); admitted emergently (31% vs. 21%; p < .001; at the lowest quartile for household income (25% % vs. 20%; p < .001) and from minorities (Blacks 5.9% vs. 3.9%; Hispanic 7.2% vs. 3.2%).Adjusted logistic regression was performed on 6,995 propensity-matched patient pairs. Post-procedural mortality [OR 0.99(0.98-1.007); p = .43], stroke [OR 1.009(0.99-1.02); p = .08], acute kidney injury [OR 0.99(0.96-1.01); p = .5] and overall length of stay (6.9 ± 0.1 vs. 7.1 ± 0.2 days; p = .57) were comparable in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Post-procedural outcomes after TAVR at SNH are comparable to national outcomes and wider adoption of TAVR at SNH may not adversely influence outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sheikh et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: