Outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement among solid organ transplant recipients. Issue 4 (5th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Elbadawi, Ayman; Ugwu, Justin; Elgendy, Islam Y.; Megaly, Michael; Ogunbayo, Gbolahan O.; Omer, Mohamed A.; Elzeneini, Mohammed; Chatila, Khaled; Al‐Azizi, Karim; Goel, Sachin S.; Gafoor, Sameer
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 97:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 691
• Page End: 698
• Publication Date: 2021-01-05
• Subjects: aortic valve disease -- percutaneous intervention -- transcatheter valve implantation -- transplantation; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29426
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among solid‐organ transplant recipients. Methods: Temporal trends in hospitalizations for aortic valve replacement among solid‐organ transplant recipients were determined using the National Inpatient Sample database years 2012–2017. Propensity matching was conducted to compare admissions who underwent TAVR versus SAVR. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Results: The analysis included 1, 730 hospitalizations for isolated AVR; 920 (53.2%) underwent TAVR and 810 (46.7%) underwent SAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized for solid‐organ transplant recipients (Ptrend = 0.01), while there was no change in the number of SAVR procedures (Ptrend = 0.20). The predictors of undergoing TAVR for solid‐organ transplant recipients included older age, diabetes, and prior coronary artery bypass surgery, while TAVR was less likely utilized in small‐sized hospitals. TAVR was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality after matching (0.9 vs. 4.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11–0.35, p < .001) and after multivariable adjustment (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03–0.21, p < .001). TAVR was associated with lower rate of acute kidney injury, acute stroke, postoperative bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, discharge to nursing facilities, and shorter median length of hospital stay. There was no difference between both groups in the use of mechanical circulatory support, hemodialysis, arrhythmias, or pacemaker insertion. Conclusion: This contemporary observational nationwide analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed among solid‐organ transplant recipients. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality, complications, and shorter length of stay.