Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve bypass a comparison of outcomes and economics presented at the sixty-first annual meeting of the southern thoracic surgical association, Tucson, AZ, Nov 5-8, 2014.

John Brown, Jack H. Boyd, Parth M. Patel, Mary L. Baker, Amjad Syed, Joe Ladowski, Joel Corvera

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently offered to patients who are high-risk candidates for conventional surgical aortic valve replacement. For the past 37 years, off-pump aortic valve bypass (AVB) has been used in elderly patients at our center for this similarly high-risk group. Although TAVR and AVB were offered to similar patients at our center, comparisons of clinical outcomes and hospital economics for each strategy were not reported. Methods We reviewed the clinical and financial records of 53 consecutive AVB procedures performed since 2008 with the records of 51 consecutive TAVR procedures performed since 2012. Data included demographics, hemodynamics, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score, extent of coronary disease, and ventricular function. Follow-up was 100% in both groups. Hospital financial information for both cohorts was obtained. Mean risk score for the TAVR group was 10.1% versus 17.6% for AVB group (p <0.001). Results Kaplan-Meier hospital rates of 3- and 6-month survival and of 1-year survival were 88%, 86%, 81%, and 61% and 89%, 83%, 83%, and 70% for the TAVR and AVB groups, respectively (p = 0.781). Two patients who had undergone TAVR had a procedure-related stroke. The one stroke in an AVB recipient was late and not procedure related. At discharge, mild and moderate perivalvular and central aortic insufficiency were present in 31% and 16% of TAVR recipients, respectively; no AVB valve leaked. Transvalvular gradients were reduced to less than 10 mm Hg in both groups. The average hospital length of stay for the AVB-treated patients was 13 days, and it was 9 days for the TAVR-treated patients. Median hospital charges were $253,000 for TAVR and $158,000 for AVB. Mean payment to the hospital was $65,000 (TAVR) versus $64,000 (AVB), and the mean positive contribution margin (profit) to the hospital was $14,000 for TAVR versus $29,000 for AVB. Conclusions TAVR and AVB relieve aortic stenosis and have similar and acceptable procedural mortality rates. AVB-treated patients had 1.75 times the STS risk score when compared with the TAVR cohort. Hospital charges for TAVR were nearly twofold those of AVB. Hospital reimbursement was similar, but AVB had two to four times the profit margin of TAVR. Longer follow-up for the TAVR cohort will determine whether survival is comparable to that after AVB at 3 and 5 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)49-54
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of Thoracic Surgery
Volume101
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve bypass a comparison of outcomes and economics presented at the sixty-first annual meeting of the southern thoracic surgical association, Tucson, AZ, Nov 5-8, 2014.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this