Combined atrial fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion procedure in the United States: a propensity score matched analysis from 2016-2019 national readmission database.

AIMS: The safety and feasibility of combining percutaneous catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as a single procedure in the USA have not been investigated. We analyzed the US National Readmission Database (NRD) to investigate the incidence of combined LAAO + CA and compare major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with matched LAAO-only and CA-only patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective study from NRD data, we identified patients undergoing combined LAAO and CA procedures on the same day in the USA from 2016 to 2019. A 1:1 propensity score match was performed to identify patients undergoing LAAO-only and CA-only procedures. The number of LAAO + CA procedures increased from 28 (2016) to 119 (2019). LAAO + CA patients (n = 375, mean age 74 ± 9.2 years, 53.4% were males) had non-significant higher MACE (8.1%) when compared with LAAO-only (n = 407, 5.3%) or CA-only patients (n = 406, 7.4%), which was primarily driven by higher rate of pericardial effusion (4.3%). All-cause 30-day readmission rates among LAAO + CA patients (10.7%) were similar when compared with LAAO-only (12.7%) or CA-only (17.5%) patients. The most frequent primary reason for readmissions among LAAO + CA and LAAO-only cohorts was heart failure (24.6 and 31.5%, respectively), while among the CA-only cohort, it was paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (25.7%). CONCLUSION: We report an 63% annual growth (from 28 procedures) in combined LAAO and CA procedures in the USA. There were no significant difference in MACE and all-cause 30-day readmission rates among LAAO + CA patients compared with matched LAAO-only or CA-only patients.

Outcomes and predictors of readmission after implantation of a percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion device in the United States: A propensity score-matched analysis from The National Readmission Database.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices have become a favorable alternative option among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with long-term contraindication to anticoagulation. Real-world experience with postprocedural readmission rates and predictors of readmission in LAAO patients is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess all-cause 30-day readmission rate and predictors of readmission after LAAO procedure in the United States. METHOD: This retrospective observational study included all AF patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO procedures in the United States from January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, in the National Readmission Database. The primary outcome measure was all-cause 30-day readmission. A propensity score-matched analysis compared outcomes with a non-LAAO AF cohort. RESULT: Among 14 024 LAAO procedures (age: 76 ± 8 years; 60.5% males), 9.4% were readmitted within 30-days and, 0.2% died during their index hospitalization. The most frequent primary diagnosis during readmission among LAAO was gastrointestinal bleeding (12%). The incidence of LAAO procedures increased by 102%. In the multivariate model, gender and CHA2 DS2 -VASc failed to predict readmission. Age 55-64 years had lower odds (adjusted odds ratios [aOR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.94), while drug abuse (aOR: 4.1; 95% CI: 1.34-12.54), and deficiency anemia (aOR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.12-3.18) had higher odds of readmission. In propensity-matched cohort, compared to non-LAAO AF, LAAO patients had lower 30-day readmission (9.4% vs. 10.98%, p = .002) and all-cause in-hospital mortality (0.19% vs. 0.57%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The readmission rate following the LAAO procedure is substantial (approximately 10%), and largely attributable to gastrointestinal bleeding. Factors such as drug abuse and anemia must be explored further to minimize readmission risk.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with pure aortic insufficiency (PAI). BACKGROUND: The treatment of choice for patients with severe symptomatic PAI is SAVR. However, not all patients are candidates for surgery because of comorbidities or are deemed high risk for surgery. As a result, TAVR is being used as an off-label procedure in some patients with PAI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample database from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Inclusion criteria were patients with aortic valve insufficiency undergoing either TAVR or SAVR. Patients with concomitant aortic stenosis, or history of infective endocarditis, and those below the age of 18 years were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 14,720 patients with PAI underwent valve replacement. Of those, 6.2% underwent TAVR. The TAVR group was significantly older (median age 78 years vs 64 years; P <.001). There was no evidence of a difference in in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups. However, after adjustment, patients in the TAVR group were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, postoperative respiratory complications, and length of stay. On the other hand, those in the SAVR group were less likely to need permanent pacemakers. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a significant statistical difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with PAI treated by either SAVR or TAVR, both in unmatched and propensity-matched cohorts. TAVR could be considered for patients with PAI who are not candidates for surgery.