Changes in the Prosthesis Types Used for Aortic Valve Replacement after the Introduction of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Sutureless and rapid deployment valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR) were introduced in Korea in December 2016. This study evaluated changing trends in the prosthetic valves used for AVR in Korea after the introduction of sutureless and rapid deployment valves. METHODS: From December 2016 to December 2018, 4,899 patients underwent AVR in Korea. After applying the exclusion criteria, 4,872 patients were analyzed to determine changes in the type of prosthetic valve used for AVR. The study period was divided into 5 groups corresponding to 5-month intervals. RESULTS: The total number of AVR cases was 194.88±28.78 per month during the study period. Mechanical valves were used in approximately 27% to 33% of cases, and the proportion of mechanical valve use showed a tendency to decrease, with marginal significance overall (p=0.078) and significant decreases in patients less than 60 years of age and in men (p=0.013 and p=0.023, respectively). The use of sutureless valves increased from 13.4% to 25.8% of cases (p<0.001), especially in elderly patients (>70 years) and those requiring concomitant surgery. In a comparison between sutureless and rapid deployment valves, the use of Perceval S valves (a type of sutureless valve), gradually increased (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: After the introduction of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in Korea, the rate of use of these new valves remarkably increased, especially in elderly patients and those requiring concomitant surgery. Further studies should investigate the clinical outcomes of these new prostheses.

Early and Two-year Outcomes after Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: a Nationwide Population-based Study.

BACKGROUND: We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data. METHODS: From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs. RESULTS: Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR grouP = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Effects of Community-Based Primary Care Management on Patients With Hypertension and Diabetes.

As the prevalence of chronic diseases is continuously increasing, the socioeconomic cost of those conditions in Korea is also rising. In order to effectively manage chronic diseases, the "Community-Based Primary Care Project" was implemented from 2014 to 2016 and focused on primary medical care and physician-led chronic disease management. The purpose of this study is evaluating the effects of the project through the DID (difference in difference) model. The project's database and the National Health Insurance claims database were both used to compare the project and control groups (n = 6092 vs 24 368). Results of the analysis show that medication adherence was increased more in the project group compared with the control group. Hospitalization days, outpatient days, and number of primary medical clinic visits increased more in the participant group than the control group. As the project showed an improvement in treatment persistence, it will be necessary to monitor for a longer period of time.