Updates on transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Techniques, complications, outcome, and prognosis

Alfadhli, Jarrah; Jeraq, Mohammed; Singh, Vikas; Martinez, Claudia

doi:10.1016/j.jsha.2018.07.002

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our analysis, we identified patients with HF and addressed the outcomes accordingly in SAVR and TAVR patients, making the variation in sample characteristics less likely to confound the results. Even in studies showing a non‐inferiority of TAVR approach based on the mortality outcome, TAVR with such a conclusion would present a preferred method giving the less invasive intervention, lower length of stay and less overall complications 22,23 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal trends and outcomes in utilisation of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve therapies in aortic valve stenosis patients with heart failure

Al‐Khadra

Sattar

Ullah³

et al. 2020

Int J Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introductions & Aims Heart failure (HF) is a common comorbidity in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to access the temporal trends and outcomes of TAVR or SAVR in HF patients. Method The NIS database from 2011‐2014 was queried for patients that underwent TAVR or SAVR and were subsequently diagnosed with HF. Temporal trends in the utilisation of TAVR or SAVR in HF patients were analysed. Results Among 27 982 patients who were diagnosed with HF of whom 17 681 (63.2%) had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) while 10 301 (36.8%) had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), 9049 (32.3%) underwent TAVR and 16 933 (76.7%) underwent SAVR. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had higher utilisation of TAVR compared with SAVR over the course of the study period (P trend < .001). TAVR was associated with lower mortality [2.8% in 2012 and 1.8% in 2014 (P .013)] compared with SAVR. Similarly, multiple logistic regression showed a statistically significant lower in‐hospital mortality in the TAVR group compared with SAVR (aOR 0.634; CI 0.504, 0.798, P < .001). Conclusion For patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and heart failure who undergo aortic valve intervention, TAVR is associated with less odds of in‐hospital mortality compared with SAVR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%