Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2019
Impact of age and comorbidities on the effect of transcatheter versus surgical mitral valve repair on inpatient outcomes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jogu Hanumantha R, Arora Sameer, Strassle Paula D, Patel Chinmay, Patil Nikita, Venkatesh Sanjay, Alkhaimy Haytham, Ramm Cassandra J, Qamar Arman, Kim Sun M, Yeung Michael, Vavalle John P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for symptomatic severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients who are at prohibitive surgical risk. Whether age and comorbidities impact the inpatient safety outcomes of TMVR versus surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) is unknown.
METHODS: Using the national inpatient sample, patients undergoing either elective TMVR or SMVR between 2012 and 2015 were analyzed. Logistic, generalized logistic, and linear regression were used to compare inpatient complications, discharge disposition, and length of stay (LOS). Heterogeneity in the effect of TMVR versus SMVR across Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, categorized as <2 and ≥2) and age (categorized as <75 years old and ≥75 years old) were assessed for effect modification.
RESULTS: Overall, 8,716 hospitalizations were included, 7,950 (91%) SMVR and 766 (9%) TMVR. Compared with SMVR, patients undergoing TMVR were older (median age 79 vs. 62 years) and more likely to be female (45% vs. 40%) with a higher CCI score (median CCI 2 vs. 1). Despite being older with a higher comorbidity burden, patients undergoing TMVR had a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.50), cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.92), and major bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47). TMVR patients were also discharged 3 days earlier (CIE -3.26; 95% CI: -3.72, -2.80) and were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55, 0.93). Additionally, the relative reduction in complications after TMVR versus SMVR was significantly higher in older (age ≥75 years) and more comorbid (CCI ≥2) patients (p for interaction <.05 for both).
CONCLUSION: Patients treated with TMVR, as compared with SMVR, were older and had more comorbidities, but had a lower incidence of inpatient complications, shorter LOS, and better discharge disposition. Therefore, TMVR may be a safer option than SMVR in older patients and those with a higher burden of comorbidities.
METHODS: Using the national inpatient sample, patients undergoing either elective TMVR or SMVR between 2012 and 2015 were analyzed. Logistic, generalized logistic, and linear regression were used to compare inpatient complications, discharge disposition, and length of stay (LOS). Heterogeneity in the effect of TMVR versus SMVR across Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, categorized as <2 and ≥2) and age (categorized as <75 years old and ≥75 years old) were assessed for effect modification.
RESULTS: Overall, 8,716 hospitalizations were included, 7,950 (91%) SMVR and 766 (9%) TMVR. Compared with SMVR, patients undergoing TMVR were older (median age 79 vs. 62 years) and more likely to be female (45% vs. 40%) with a higher CCI score (median CCI 2 vs. 1). Despite being older with a higher comorbidity burden, patients undergoing TMVR had a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.50), cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.92), and major bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47). TMVR patients were also discharged 3 days earlier (CIE -3.26; 95% CI: -3.72, -2.80) and were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55, 0.93). Additionally, the relative reduction in complications after TMVR versus SMVR was significantly higher in older (age ≥75 years) and more comorbid (CCI ≥2) patients (p for interaction <.05 for both).
CONCLUSION: Patients treated with TMVR, as compared with SMVR, were older and had more comorbidities, but had a lower incidence of inpatient complications, shorter LOS, and better discharge disposition. Therefore, TMVR may be a safer option than SMVR in older patients and those with a higher burden of comorbidities.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Age FactorsAgedAged, 80 and overCardiac CatheterizationComorbidityDatabases, FactualFemaleHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedMitral ValveMitral Valve InsufficiencyPostoperative ComplicationsRecovery of FunctionRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeUnited States