Brennan J Matthew, Holmes David R, Sherwood Matthew W, Edwards Fred H, Carroll John D, Grover Fred L, Tuzcu E Murat, Thourani Vinod, Brindis Ralph G, Shahian David M, Svensson Lars G, O'Brien Sean M, Shewan Cynthia M, Hewitt Kathleen, Gammie James S, Rumsfeld John S, Peterson Eric D, Mack Michael J
Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Dec;98(6):2016-22; discussion 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.07.051. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
Whether the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has affected hospitals' surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and overall aortic valve replacement (AVR) case volumes and outcomes in the United States is unknown.
We utilized data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) adult cardiac surgery database and the STS/American College of Cardiology (ACC) transcatheter valve therapies registry to examine SAVR and TAVR procedures. Temporal trends in total case volume (SAVR plus TAVR), and observed and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates were assessed among low-risk cases (STS predicted risk of operative mortality < 4%), intermediate-risk cases (4% to 8%), and high-risk cases (> 8%). A contemporary control was provided by non-TAVR centers.
From 2008 to 2013, the total annual volume of AVR among 246 TAVR-performing hospitals increased from 19,578 to 33,004, with a 22% growth in SAVR volumes; non-TAVR hospital (n = 555) increases were more modest (16,563 to 19,134; 16% growth). Expanded volumes at TAVR hospitals included increased SAVR use in low- and intermediate-risk cases, and TAVR use in high-risk cases. In parallel, in-hospital mortality for all AVR procedures at TAVR sites declined from 3.4% to 2.9% (observed to expected [O:E] ratio 0.75 to 0.58, p < 0.001); the greatest declines were among intermediate- and high-risk SAVR patients. Owing to reduced SAVR mortality, TAVR centers experienced a significantly greater decline in O:E ratio for high-risk patient in-hospital mortality than non-TAVR centers (TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.81 to 0.61; non-TAVR center O:E ratio, 0.85 to 0.76; p < 0.001). After approval of TAVR for clinical use, a trend toward higher in-hospital mortality rates and O:E ratios for TAVR procedures was observed at new (but not at established) TAVR centers (O:E ratio, 0.41 to 0.67; p = 0.08).
Since the introduction of TAVR, the total volume of AVR procedures, including higher overall use of SAVR, at TAVR sites has significantly increased in the United States. Overall, in-hospital survival of patients undergoing treatment for aortic valve stenosis continues to improve.
经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的引入是否影响了美国医院的外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)以及整体主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)的病例数量和结局尚不清楚。
我们利用胸外科医师协会(STS)成人心脏手术数据库和STS/美国心脏病学会(ACC)经导管瓣膜治疗注册中心的数据来研究SAVR和TAVR手术。评估了低风险病例(STS预测手术死亡率风险<4%)、中度风险病例(4%至8%)和高风险病例(>8%)的总病例数量(SAVR加TAVR)的时间趋势,以及观察到的和风险调整后的住院死亡率。非TAVR中心提供了一个当代对照。
2008年至2013年,246家开展TAVR的医院中,AVR的年总病例数量从19,578例增加到33,004例,SAVR病例数量增长了22%;非TAVR医院(n = 555)的增长较为适度(从16,563例增加到19,134例;增长16%)。TAVR医院病例数量的增加包括低风险和中度风险病例中SAVR使用的增加,以及高风险病例中TAVR使用的增加。与此同时,TAVR医院所有AVR手术的住院死亡率从3.4%降至2.9%(观察值与预期值[O:E]之比从0.75降至0.58,p<0.001);降幅最大的是中度风险和高风险的SAVR患者。由于SAVR死亡率的降低,TAVR中心高风险患者住院死亡率的O:E比值下降幅度明显大于非TAVR中心(TAVR中心O:E比值,从0.81降至0.61;非TAVR中心O:E比值,从0.85降至0.76;p<0.001)。TAVR获批临床使用后,新的(而非已有的)TAVR中心观察到TAVR手术的住院死亡率和O:E比值有升高趋势(O:E比值,从0.41升至0.67;p = 0.08)。
自引入TAVR以来,美国TAVR医院的AVR手术总量,包括SAVR的总体使用增加,显著增加。总体而言,接受主动脉瓣狭窄治疗的患者的住院生存率持续提高。