Advertisement

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: First Report from the National Registry

Summary and Comment |
December 16, 2013

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: First Report from the National Registry

  1. Howard C. Herrmann, MD

Results were comparable to those from published randomized trials.

  1. Howard C. Herrmann, MD

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved for use in the U.S. in November 2011. Today, about 250 clinical sites report post-TAVR outcomes to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry as a condition of Medicare reimbursement. We now have initial results from 7710 patients (median age, 84; 51% men) who underwent TAVR at 224 hospitals before June 2013; about 20% were deemed “inoperable,” and the remaining 80% were at high estimated operative risk.

The median STS-predicted risk for operative mortality at 30 days was 7%, with wide variation among sites. Most TAVR approaches were transfemoral (64%) or transapical (29%). The majority of procedures (57%) were performed in a hybrid operating room, and nearly all (98%) involved general anesthesia. The implantation success rate was 92%. Conversion to open surgery (1% of patients) was associated with a 49% in-hospital death rate.

Overall in-hospital mortality was 5.5%. Other complications included stroke (2.0%), major vascular injury (6.4%), and acute renal insufficiency (5.5%). Median length of stay was 6 days, and 8.5% of patients were found to have moderate or severe aortic insufficiency just before discharge. Thirty-day mortality, reported by only about half of participating hospitals, was 7.6%.

Comment

This first glimpse of the commercial use of early-generation TAVR in the U.S. reveals success and complication rates similar to those in published randomized trials and to those documented outside the U.S. with later-generation devices. The national registry data suggest that a heart-team approach, a controlled rollout, and a high level of site training and case supervision by a sponsor can achieve post-approval results similar to those of clinical trials. However, the possibility of “indication creep” to a lower STS-predicted risk for operative mortality than in randomized trials cannot be excluded as an explanation for the excellent outcomes. Further analyses must explore that issue as well as the wide variability among centers in procedural volume and patient selection.

  • Disclosures for Howard C. Herrmann, MD at time of publication Consultant / Advisory board Gerson Lehrman Group; Siemens; St. Jude Medical Speaker's bureau American College of Cardiology Foundation; Cardiovascular Institute; Cardiovascular Research Foundation; Christiana Medical Center; Coastal Cardiovascular Society; Crozer-Chester Hospital; Mayo Clinic; New York Cardiology Society Equity Micro-Interventional Devices, Inc. Grant / research support Abbott Vascular; Edwards Lifesciences; Gore; Medtronic; St. Jude Medical Editorial boards Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions; Circulation-Cardiovascular Interventions; Journal of Interventional Cardiology; Journal of Invasive Cardiology

Citation(s):

Reader Comments (1)

fereydoon Physician, Cardiology, rasoolakram general hospital

Tcavr had develop during new years.with new generation of prosthetic devices and experiance outcome is bether

Your Comment

(will not be published)

Filtered HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Do you have any conflict of interest to disclose?
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

* Required

Reader comments are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement