scholarly journals Surgical aortic valve replacement due to infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding Portico valve prosthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 699-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukiharu Sugimura ◽  
Shintaro Katahira ◽  
Rene Lopez Lopez ◽  
Philipp Rellecke ◽  
Artur Lichtenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
The Self ◽  
Valve Prosthesis ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Valve Implantation

scholarly journals 55. Infective Endocarditis After Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S38-S39
Author(s):  
Aikaterini Papamanoli ◽  
Brandon Muncan ◽  
Puja Parikh ◽  
Hal A Skopicki ◽  
Andreas Kalogeropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Valve Implantation ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) can complicate both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with significant morbidity and mortality despite differing pathogenesis. In the presence of limited data from direct comparison studies and recent expansion of TAVI to younger and lower- risk patients, we compared the incidence and timing of IE in TAVI versus SAVR. Methods Using data from the TriNetX electronic health records network, we identified (1) a cohort of patients who underwent TAVI between January 2016 and December 2020 (CPT procedure code 1021150) and (2) a propensity score-matched cohort of patients who underwent SAVR (CPT procedure codes 1035167 or 1029693, without any associated transcatheter procedure). We examined the incidence of IE (captured with ICD-10 codes I33, I38, or I39) over a 5-year follow up period and matched the cohorts for demographic data and clinically relevant background history. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to compare incidence between matched cohorts. Results We identified 6,302 patients with TAVI and 6,302 matched patients with SAVR. The baseline characteristics of the cohorts were well balanced, Table 1. All standardized mean differences were < 0.05, indicating adequate matching between cohorts. The Kaplan-Meier mortality at 5 years was 38.0% in the TAVI vs. 22.0% in the SAVR cohort (log-rank P < 0.001). There were 290 cases with IE in the TAVI and 604 cases in the SAVR cohort. The corresponding 5-year event rates were 10.0% vs. 16.9% (log-rank P < 0.001), respectively, Figure 1. The risk ratio of TAVI vs. SAVR related IE over the entire 5-year period was 0.48 (95%CI 0.42 — 0.55; P < 0.001). However, the relative risk for IE was non-proportional between groups over the 5-year period, with an early pronounced incidence among SAVR relative to TAVI patients and gradual convergence of the hazard rates over time, Figure 2. Figure 1. Cumulative 5-Year Incidence (Kaplan-Meier Estimates) of Infective Endocarditis Among Matched Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) Recipients Figure 2. Risk of Infective Endocarditis in SAVR vs. TAVI Recipients Over Time Conclusion In this comparative study, the risk for IE was lower among TAVI vs. SAVR recipients, primarily due to the higher risk of IE during the early post-SAVR period. With increasing uptake of TAVI procedures, a better understanding of the temporal occurrence and pathophysiology of IE and application of effective treatment strategies in these patients is required. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saerom Youn ◽  
Shannon Avery Wong ◽  
Caitlin Chrystoja ◽  
George Tomlinson ◽  
Harindra C. Wijeysundera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Valve Implantation

Abstract Background Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Results We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not. Conclusion Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document