Key result
Rising TAVR utilization is linked to a ~25% reduction in in-hospital mortality.
Why the study?
The study was designed to analyse real-world national data on the parallel utilisation of TAVR and SAVR.
How did the utilization and in-hospital mortality of TAVR and SAVR change in the USA from 2012 to 2016?
Observational (n=463,675)
Yes
How did the utilization and in-hospital mortality of TAVR and SAVR change in the USA from 2012 to 2016?
Odds Ratio: 0.75 (95% CI 0.7–0.79)
p-value: p=<0.001
The widespread adoption of TAVR in the US from 2012 to 2016 drove a significant increase in total AVR volume, accompanied by declining in-hospital mortality for TAVR but not SAVR.
TAVR growth coincided with lower mortality; leaves open whether volume, selection, or experience drove trends in this observational analysis.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the real-world national data on parallel utilisation of transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement. METHODS AND RESULTS: We queried an all-payer, administrative United States in-patient database to identify all AVR hospitalisations in patients aged ≥18 years from January 2012 to December 2016 and examined the temporal changes in the number of AVR procedures and in-hospital mortality. A total of 463,675 AVRs were performed - 363,275 (78.4%) SAVR and 100,400 (21.6%) TAVR. AVR linearly increased (from 78,985 in 2012 to 103,415 in 2016; +30.9%; ptrend<0.001) largely due to a marked increase in TAVR (from 7,655 to 33,545; +338%; ptrend<0.001), whereas the absolute number of SAVRs remained relatively stable (from 71,330 to 69,870; -1%; ptrend<0.001). The number of TAVRs increased in all pre-specified age groups (<75, 75-79, 80-85, and ≥85 years; ptrend<0.001 for all). In contrast, the number of SAVRs increased modestly in patients aged <75 years (ptrend<0.001) and declined in those aged 75-79 years, 80-84 years, or ≥85 years (ptrend<0.001 for all). Age- and sex-adjusted in-hospital mortality after isolated (aOR 1.00 [0.95-1.05]; ptrend=0.96) or combined SAVR (aOR 1.01 [0.97-1.05]; ptrend=0.66) remained unchanged during the study period, whereas in-hospital mortality after TAVR declined (aOR 0.75 [0.70-0.79]; ptrend<0.001). Similar trends in in-hospital mortality were seen in the age subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The number of AVRs markedly increased in the USA from 2012 to 2016, mainly due to the widespread adoption of TAVR, whereas the number of SAVRs remained relatively stable. In-hospital mortality after TAVR declined, whereas that after SAVR has remained unchanged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Aortic valve replacement (n=463,675). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality trend (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.79, p=<0.001). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) utilization increased by 338% from 2012 to 2016, accompanied by a significant decline in in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.75; 95% CI 0.70-0.79; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: