Abstract

Introduction Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive alternative to traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) that has been increasingly utilized in the management of aortic stenosis. Several studies have compared the outcomes of TAVR to SAVR, and studies have also compared the clinical outcomes in the elderly population. However, the comparison in outcomes of TAVR between patients more than 80 years and less than 80 years old has not been well characterized. Therefore, in this study, we sought to assess the hospital outcomes and major adverse events of TAVR in patients ≥80 years old compared to those <80 years.

Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using the National Inpatient Sample for the year 2018. Using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10) procedure codes we identified patients who underwent TAVR. We further divided these patients into two cohorts based on age being ≥80 years and <80 years old. The primary outcomes were the comparison of in-hospital mortality and major adverse events (MAE) in patients with TAVR procedure stratified based on age. Secondary analysis included sub-groups analysis of both the cohorts and comparing those with and without MAE as well as comparison of those with MAE only in both cohorts.

Results We identified 63,630 patients who underwent TAVR procedures from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Among them, 35, 115(55%) were ≥80 years and 28,515(45%) were <80 years of age. There was no difference in the in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.1%, p=0.89) and rates of MAE (23.8 vs 23.4, p=0.49) between ≥80 and <80year patients. Anemia (aOR-2.12 vs. aOR-1.93), Liver disease (aOR-1.57 vs aOR-1.48), CKD (aOR-1.34 vs. aOR-1.68), history of stroke (aOR-1.54 vs. aOR-1.46), and a higher number of comorbidities were independently associated with higher odds of MAE in both groups. Among patients ≥80, increasing age was also associated with higher MAE (aOR-1.03). In patients who had MAE, those < 80 years had higher comorbidities compared to those ≥80 years (Charlson category ≥3 - 74.5 vs 67%, p<0.001). More patients of age ≥80 years old also belonged to zip-codes with higher median income (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis of patients with MAE on both cohorts, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality rate (p=0.65) and length of stay (p=0.12) but total hospital charges were higher for patients less than 80 years of age (283,618 vs 300,624$, p=0.04). However, patients ≥80 years had a higher rate of pacemaker insertion compared to those < 80 years (25.1 vs 24.4%, p=0.008).

Conclusion This study shows that in patients undergoing TAVR, the in-hospital mortality and MAE were not statistically significant between those aged ≥80 years and < 80 years. However, among subjects who experienced MAE, those < 80 years had a higher proportion of comorbidities than those ≥80 years of age. Our study also shows that for those above 80 years of age undergoing TAVR, the odds of MAE increases by 3% for each year on increasing age.

Journal Link: medRxiv

MEDIA CONTACT
Register for reporter access to contact details
CITATIONS

medRxiv