Impact of age and comorbidities on the effect of transcatheter versus surgical mitral valve repair on inpatient outcomes. Issue 6 (2nd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jogu, Hanumantha R.; Arora, Sameer; Strassle, Paula D.; Patel, Chinmay; Patil, Nikita; Venkatesh, Sanjay; Alkhaimy, Haytham; Ramm, Cassandra J.; Qamar, Arman; Kim, Sun M.; Yeung, Michael; Vavalle, John P.
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 95:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1195
• Page End: 1201
• Publication Date: 2019-09-02
• Subjects: age -- MitraClip -- mitral regurgitation -- surgical mitral valve repair -- TMVR; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28479
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for symptomatic severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients who are at prohibitive surgical risk. Whether age and comorbidities impact the inpatient safety outcomes of TMVR versus surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) is unknown. Methods: Using the national inpatient sample, patients undergoing either elective TMVR or SMVR between 2012 and 2015 were analyzed. Logistic, generalized logistic, and linear regression were used to compare inpatient complications, discharge disposition, and length of stay (LOS). Heterogeneity in the effect of TMVR versus SMVR across Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, categorized as <2 and ≥2) and age (categorized as <75 years old and ≥75 years old) were assessed for effect modification. Results: Overall, 8, 716 hospitalizations were included, 7, 950 (91%) SMVR and 766 (9%) TMVR. Compared with SMVR, patients undergoing TMVR were older (median age 79 vs. 62 years) and more likely to be female (45% vs. 40%) with a higher CCI score (median CCI 2 vs. 1). Despite being older with a higher comorbidity burden, patients undergoing TMVR had a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.50), cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.92), and major bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47). TMVR patients were also discharged 3 days earlier (CIE −3.26; 95% CI: −3.72, −2.80) and were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55, 0.93). Additionally, the relative reduction in complications after TMVR versus SMVR was significantly higher in older (age ≥75 years) and more comorbid (CCI ≥2) patients ( p for interaction <.05 for both). Conclusion: Patients treated with TMVR, as compared with SMVR, were older and had more comorbidities, but had a lower incidence of inpatient complications, shorter LOS, and better discharge disposition. Therefore, TMVR may be a safer option than SMVR in older patients and those with a higher burden of comorbidities.