ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be complicated with a high-degree atrioventricular block requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) in 5% - 25% of patients. Association between body mass index (BMI) and pacemaker implantation has not been extensively studied. We compared standard BMI classes with the odds of requiring a PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN™ 3 valves (ESV3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). METHODS: Our study involved a single-center retrospective cohort analysis of 449 patients undergoing TAVR from December 2012 to April 2018. First, we excluded patients with a TAVR procedure done with valves other than the ESV3 (127 patients). Second, patients with a prior PPM or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (37 patients) were excluded. Finally, patients with an aborted procedure and surgical conversion were excluded (16 patients). The final sample size was 269. The primary outcome was pacemaker implantation. Statistical analysis was done using the Chi-square test, T-test, and adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 269 patients (50.6% males; mean age of 79.5 ± 8.7 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score: 6.2), pacemaker implantation was performed in 17 patients (6.3%). Time to pacemaker implantation was 1.3 days. Patients were divided into four categories based on their BMI: as underweight (BMI < 25; 67 patients), normal (BMI: 25 to ≤ 30; 87 patients), overweight (BMI: 30 to ≤ 35; 60 patients), and obese (BMI ≥ 35; 55 patients). Pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in patients with a BMI of > 30 (13 vs. 4, p = 0.037). After logistic linear regression, the odds of getting a PPM after TAVR were significantly higher in patients who were overweight (odds ratio (OR): 12.77, p = 0.024; confidence interval (CI): 1.39 - 17.25) and obese (OR: 15.02, p = 0.036, CI: 1.19 - 19.92). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that increased BMI is a possible risk factor for a high-degree atrioventricular block in patients receiving ESV3.
ABSTRACT
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment for aortic stenosis in patients who are at moderate to high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. The use of conscious sedation (CS) as compared with general anesthesia (GA) has shown better clinical outcomes for TAVR patients. Whether CS has any cost-benefit is still unknown. We analyze our local TAVR registry with a focus on the cost comparison between CS and GA for the TAVR population. Methods It is a retrospective chart review of 434 patients who received TAVR at our local center from December 2012 to April 2018. Patients who had their procedure aborted and those requiring a cardiopulmonary bypass or surgical conversion (16 patients) were excluded. The final sample size was 418. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received CS or GA. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) hours, length of stay in hospital, readmission, or death at 30 days. The secondary outcome was the cost of TAVR admission. The cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. The student's T-test and chi-square tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Adjusted logistic regression and multivariate analyses were run for primary and secondary outcomes. Results Of the 418 patients (age: 80.9±8.5, male: 52%) CS was given to 194 patients (46.4%) while GA was given in 224 patients(53.6%). The GA group had comparatively older age (81.8 vs. 80.0; p=0.03) and a higher average Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score (8.4 vs 5.7; p<0.001). Patients who received CS had a significantly shorter ICU stay (31.5 vs. 41.6 hours, p<0.001) and total days in the hospital (2.9 vs. 3.8 days, p=0.01). Readmission and mortality at 30 days were not different between the groups. There was no statistical difference in cost between the two groups ($72,809 vs. $71,497: p=0.656). Conclusion Using CS compared with GA improves morbidity for TAVR patients, in the form of ICU stay and the total length of stay in hospital. We did not find a significant difference in the cost of TAVR admission between CS and GA.
ABSTRACT
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be complicated with a complete atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. The cost of index hospitalization for such patients is higher than usual. However, the magnitude of this increased cost is uncertain. We have looked at our five-year TAVR experience to analyze the detailed cost for PPM implantation in TAVR. Methods This study is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing TAVR at our tertiary care center from December 2012 to April 2018. The initial sample size was 449. We excluded patients with prior PPM or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (37). Patients who had their procedure aborted or required a cardiopulmonary bypass (16) and those with missing data variables (14) were excluded. The final sample size was 382. The cost for admission was calculated as the US dollars incurred by the hospital. Cohort costs were categorized as a direct cost, which is patient based, and an indirect cost, which represents overhead costs and is independent of patient volume. Patients were divided into two groups based on the placement of PPM after TAVR. Chi-square test, t-test, and logistic linear regression were used for the statistical analysis. Results Of 382 patients, 19 (4.9%) required PPM after TAVR. Baseline variables, including age, gender, and BMI, were not statistically significant. The PPM group had a significantly longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay (48.6 hours vs. 36.7 hours; p<0.001) and total stay in the hospital (4.2 days vs. 3.4 days; p=0.047). PPM implantation after TAVR increased cost on an average of $10,213 more than a typical TAVR admission (p=0.04). The direct cost was also significantly high for the PPM group ($7,087; p=0.02). On detailed analysis, almost all major cost categories showed a higher cost for pacemaker patients when compared with control. Conclusions PPM implantation adds a significant cost burden to TAVR admissions.
