Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2024 May 23;19(5):e0301939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301939. eCollection 2024.
Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has garnered interest as a viable alternative to the traditional surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) for high-risk patients requiring redo operations. This study aims to evaluate the association of TMVR with selected clinical and financial outcomes.
Adults undergoing isolated redo mitral valve replacement were identified in the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database and categorized into TMVR or SMVR cohorts. Various regression models were developed to assess the association between TMVR and in-hospital mortality, as well as additional secondary outcomes. Transseptal and transapical catheter-based approaches were also compared in relation to study endpoints.
Of an estimated 7,725 patients, 2,941 (38.1%) underwent TMVR. During the study period, the proportion of TMVR for redo operations increased from 17.8% to 46.7% (nptrend<0.001). Following adjustment, TMVR was associated with similar odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.82, p = 0.48), but lower odds of stroke (AOR 0.44, p = 0.001), prolonged ventilation (AOR 0.43, p<0.001), acute kidney injury (AOR 0.61, p<0.001), and reoperation (AOR 0.29, p = 0.02). TMVR was additionally correlated with shorter postoperative length of stay (pLOS; β -0.98, p<0.001) and reduced costs (β -$10,100, p = 0.002). Additional analysis demonstrated that the transseptal approach had lower adjusted mortality (AOR 0.44, p = 0.02), shorter adjusted pLOS (β -0.43, p<0.001), but higher overall costs (β $5,200, p = 0.04), compared to transapical.
In this retrospective cohort study, we noted TMVR to yield similar odds of in-hospital mortality as SMVR, but fewer complications and reduced healthcare expenditures. Moreover, transseptal approaches were associated with lower adjusted mortality, shorter pLOS, but higher cost, relative to the transapical. Our findings suggest that TMVR represent a cost-effective and safe treatment modality for patients requiring redo mitral valve procedures. Nevertheless, future studies examining long-term outcomes associated with SMVR and TMVR in redo mitral valve operations, are needed.
经导管二尖瓣置换术(TMVR)作为一种有前途的替代方法,已引起人们的关注,可用于高危患者需要再次手术的传统二尖瓣置换术(SMVR)。本研究旨在评估 TMVR 与选定的临床和财务结果之间的关联。
在 2016 年至 2020 年全国再入院数据库中确定了接受单纯二尖瓣再次置换的成年人,并分为 TMVR 或 SMVR 队列。开发了各种回归模型来评估 TMVR 与院内死亡率以及其他次要结局之间的关联。还比较了经房间隔和经心尖导管的方法与研究终点的关系。
在估计的 7725 名患者中,2941 名(38.1%)接受了 TMVR。在研究期间,TMVR 用于再次手术的比例从 17.8%增加到 46.7%(nptrend<0.001)。调整后,TMVR 与院内死亡率的几率相似(AOR 0.82,p=0.48),但中风的几率较低(AOR 0.44,p=0.001),通气时间延长(AOR 0.43,p<0.001),急性肾损伤(AOR 0.61,p<0.001)和再次手术(AOR 0.29,p=0.02)。TMVR 还与较短的术后住院时间(pLOS;β-0.98,p<0.001)和降低的成本(β-10100 美元,p=0.002)相关。进一步分析表明,与经心尖相比,经房间隔方法的死亡率调整后较低(AOR 0.44,p=0.02),调整后的 pLOS 较短(β-0.43,p<0.001),但总费用较高(β+5200 美元,p=0.04)。
在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们注意到 TMVR 与 SMVR 相比,院内死亡率的几率相似,但并发症较少,医疗费用降低。此外,与经心尖方法相比,经房间隔方法与较低的死亡率调整后,较短的 pLOS,但较高的成本相关。我们的研究结果表明,TMVR 代表了一种经济有效的治疗方法,适用于需要再次进行二尖瓣手术的患者。然而,需要进一步研究检查 SMVR 和 TMVR 在再次二尖瓣手术中的长期结果。