Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2024 Oct 28;13(10):685-698. doi: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuae103.
Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are an extremely high-risk population with a poor prognosis in the absence of definitive therapy. We aimed to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with AS-CS.
We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-21) to identify patients hospitalized for AS-CS who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR were compared using multivariable regression and propensity-matching analyses. Ninety-day readmissions were compared using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. A total of 16 161 patients were hospitalized for AS-CS, of whom 6470 (40.0%) underwent isolated TAVR and 9691 (60.0%) underwent isolated SAVR. From 2016 through 2021, the proportion of TAVR increased from 29.5 to 46.5% and the proportion of SAVR correspondingly decreased in AS-CS (Ptrend < 0.01). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, TAVR was associated with lower odds of stroke [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.84], acute kidney injury (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93), and major bleeding (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.71) and higher odds of vascular complications (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23-1.97) compared with SAVR. In-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker placement, and 90-day all-cause and heart failure readmissions showed similar rates between TAVR and SAVR. However, hospital length of stay was shorter and total costs and non-home discharges were lower with TAVR than with SAVR.
This nationwide observational analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed in patients with AS-CS and is associated with similar rates of in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions but lower rates of in-hospital complications and resource utilization compared with SAVR.
患有主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)和心源性休克(CS)的患者是预后极差的极高危人群,如果没有明确的治疗方法。我们旨在比较经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)与外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)在 AS-CS 患者中的疗效。
我们查询了全国再入院数据库(2016-21 年),以确定因 AS-CS 住院并接受单纯 TAVR 或 SAVR 的患者。使用多变量回归和倾向匹配分析比较 TAVR 与 SAVR 的院内疗效。使用 Cox 比例风险回归模型比较 90 天再入院率。共有 16161 例患者因 AS-CS 住院,其中 6470 例(40.0%)接受单纯 TAVR,9691 例(60.0%)接受单纯 SAVR。2016 年至 2021 年,TAVR 的比例从 29.5%增加到 46.5%,AS-CS 中 SAVR 的比例相应下降(趋势<0.01)。在调整了基线特征后,TAVR 与较低的卒中风险相关[校正比值比(aOR)0.63,95%置信区间(CI)0.47-0.84]、急性肾损伤(aOR 0.80,95%CI 0.69-0.93)和大出血(aOR 0.54,95%CI 0.40-0.71),而与 SAVR 相比,血管并发症的风险更高[aOR 1.56,95%CI 1.23-1.97]。与 SAVR 相比,TAVR 与院内死亡率、心肌梗死、永久性起搏器植入以及 90 天全因和心力衰竭再入院率相似。然而,TAVR 的住院时间较短,总费用和非家庭出院率低于 SAVR。
这项全国性观察性分析表明,TAVR 在 AS-CS 患者中的应用越来越多,与 SAVR 相比,其院内死亡率和 90 天再入院率相似,但院内并发症和资源利用率较低。