• Tomo Ando, Takayuki Onishi, Toshiki Kuno, Alexandros Briasoulis, Hisato Takagi, Cindy L Grines, Kei Hatori, Tetsuya Tobaru, Aaqib H Malik, and Hasan Ahmad.
• Kawasaki Saiwai Hospital, Division of Cardiology, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan. Electronic address: andotomo@hotmail.co.jp.
• Am. J. Cardiol. 2021 Jun 1; 148: 110-115.

AbstractClinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have significantly improved with the accumulation of operator and institution experience as well as the wide use of newer generation devices. There is limited data on TAVI outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in contemporary practice in the United States. We queried the 2018 Nationwide Readmission Database of the United States. International Classification Diagnosis code 10 was used to extract TAVI and SAVR admissions. A propensity-matched cohort was created to compare TAVI and SAVR outcomes. A weighted 48,349 TAVI and 24,896 SAVR for aortic stenosis were included and 4.9% of TAVI were performed with an embolic protection device. In propensity-matched cohort (12,708 TAVI and 12,708 SAVR), TAVI conferred lower in-hospital mortality (1.7% vs 3.8%), acute kidney injury (11.3% vs 22.9%), and transfusion rate (5.9% vs. 20.6%) whereas new pacemaker rate was higher in TAVI compared with SAVR (10.5% vs. 7.0%) (all p values < 0.001). Stroke rate was similar between TAVI and SAVR (1.5% vs. 1.5%) (p value = 0.79). The routine discharge was more frequent (66.9% vs 25.8%) and length of stay was shorter (4.8 vs. 9.8 days) in TAVI than SAVR. Hospitalization cost was higher in SAVR than TAVI (51,962 vs 57,754 U.S. dollars) (all p values < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was also lower in TAVI compared with isolated SAVR. TAVI was performed more frequently than SAVR in 2018 in the United States with lower in-hospital mortality of TAVI compared with both SAVR and isolated SAVR.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

36 keywords...

hide…