• Tomo Ando, Emmanuel Akintoye, Tesfaye Telila, Alexandros Briasoulis, Hisato Takagi, Theodore Schreiber, Luis Afonso, and Cindy L Grines.
• Wayne State University, Harper hospital/Detroit Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Detroit, Michigan.
• Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Mar 1; 91 (4): 813-819.

ObjectivesTo assess the in-hospital mortality and complications in female between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundFemale is one of the risk factors for increased adverse events in cardiac surgery.Methods And ResultsNationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2011 to 2014 for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR in female patients. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause mortality and second endpoints were perioperative complications. We performed a propensity score analysis to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for each outcome. Patients who had concomitant cardiac surgery and those who had TAVR or SAVR mainly for aortic regurgitation were excluded. Our query from 2011 to 2014 resulted in a total of 3,067 TAVR and 18,594 SAVR in female patients. TAVR patients were in general elder and had a higher burden of comorbidities. The primary endpoint was similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.2% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.0, P = 0.89). Compared to SAVR, female TAVR patients had less hemorrhage requiring transfusion (12% vs. 21%, OR 0.41, P < 0.001), perioperative cardiac arrest and nonfatal myocardial infarction (9.8% vs. 17%, OR 0.38, P < 0.001), respiratory complication (1.6% vs. 4.4%, OR 0.28, P < 0.001), post-op sepsis (1.7% vs. 2.9%, OR 0.65, P = 0.03), acute myocardial infarction (3.0% vs. 4.9%, OR 0.60, P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (15% vs. 18%, OR 0.62, P < 0.001). Conversely, female TAVR patients had significantly increased risk of new pacemaker implantation (11% vs. 5.9%, OR 1.7, P < 0.001) and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.66% vs. 0.24%, OR 2.8, P < 0.001). TAVR patients had less nonroutine discharge. The median hospital cost was significantly higher in TAVR than SAVR (median $51,274 vs. $43,677, P < 0.001) but the length of stay was shorter (mean 7.8 days vs. 10.5 days).ConclusionsTAVR may be a better option for those patients with underlying comorbidities that predispose them at higher risk for complications that was less observed in TAVR group. However, higher cost and increased risk of need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, although rare, should be taken into consideration upon deciding the optimal mode for aortic valve replacement.© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

43 keywords...

hide…