These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Mortality and resource utilization in surgical versus transcatheter repeat mitral valve replacement: A national analysis.
    Author: Le NK, Chervu N, Mallick S, Vadlakonda A, Kim S, Curry J, Benharash P.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2024; 19(5):e0301939. PubMed ID: 38781278.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has garnered interest as a viable alternative to the traditional surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) for high-risk patients requiring redo operations. This study aims to evaluate the association of TMVR with selected clinical and financial outcomes. METHODS: Adults undergoing isolated redo mitral valve replacement were identified in the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database and categorized into TMVR or SMVR cohorts. Various regression models were developed to assess the association between TMVR and in-hospital mortality, as well as additional secondary outcomes. Transseptal and transapical catheter-based approaches were also compared in relation to study endpoints. RESULTS: Of an estimated 7,725 patients, 2,941 (38.1%) underwent TMVR. During the study period, the proportion of TMVR for redo operations increased from 17.8% to 46.7% (nptrend<0.001). Following adjustment, TMVR was associated with similar odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.82, p = 0.48), but lower odds of stroke (AOR 0.44, p = 0.001), prolonged ventilation (AOR 0.43, p<0.001), acute kidney injury (AOR 0.61, p<0.001), and reoperation (AOR 0.29, p = 0.02). TMVR was additionally correlated with shorter postoperative length of stay (pLOS; β -0.98, p<0.001) and reduced costs (β -$10,100, p = 0.002). Additional analysis demonstrated that the transseptal approach had lower adjusted mortality (AOR 0.44, p = 0.02), shorter adjusted pLOS (β -0.43, p<0.001), but higher overall costs (β $5,200, p = 0.04), compared to transapical. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study, we noted TMVR to yield similar odds of in-hospital mortality as SMVR, but fewer complications and reduced healthcare expenditures. Moreover, transseptal approaches were associated with lower adjusted mortality, shorter pLOS, but higher cost, relative to the transapical. Our findings suggest that TMVR represent a cost-effective and safe treatment modality for patients requiring redo mitral valve procedures. Nevertheless, future studies examining long-term outcomes associated with SMVR and TMVR in redo mitral valve operations, are needed.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]