Explore the vast range of titles available.

In Germany, the use of TAVR increased substantially between 2007 and 2013, whereas the use of surgical aortic-valve replacement decreased modestly. Patients undergoing TAVR were older and at higher operative risk. Mortality decreased over time in both groups. Surgical aortic-valve replacement was a major clinical advance in the 1960s 1 and offered a cure for aortic stenosis, a condition for which no disease-modifying pharmacologic therapy is available. Surgical replacement remained the only treatment option until 2007, when devices for transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) were approved. 2 Since then, TAVR has become established not only as an effective therapy for patients for whom surgery is not an option 3 but also as an alternative for high-risk patients. 4 The introduction of TAVR has led to questions about the effect of this relatively new approach on current clinical practice and its effect on surgical . . .

This analysis of the data of the obligatory quality assurance programme AQUA shows the perioperative risk as well as the procedural outcome evaluated by the observed versus expected in-hospital mortality ratio (O/E ratio) of 62,872 patients undergoing isolated surgical (sAVR), transcatheter transvascular (TV-), or transapical (TA-) aortic valve replacement (TAVI) from 2012 to 2014 in Germany. The number of TAVI procedures increased from 9,352 in 2012 to 13,278 in 2014, whereas the number of sAVR remained constant (2012: 9,949; 2014: 9,953). Between 2012 and 2014, the number of TAVI implanted in patients with a logistic EuroScore I (logESI) of ≤10 % (2012: 21 %; 2014: 26 %) as well as with a logESI <20 % (2012: 57 %; 2014: 64 %) increased. In-hospital mortality in TAVI patients decreased from 5.2 % (TV: 5.0 %; TA: 7.4 %) in 2012 to 4.2 % (TV: 3.8 %; TA: 5.5 %) in 2014, whereas it was stable for sAVR patients (2012: 2.8 %; 2014: 2.6 %). The O/E ratio of TAVI patients decreased from 0.91 (TV: 0.79; TA: 1.2) to 0.73 (TV: 0.69; TA: 0.89), whereas this ratio remained constant for sAVR patients (2012: 0.92; 2014: 0.93). In summary, estimated surgical risk, in-hospital mortality, as well as the O/E ratio for patients undergoing TAVI declined constantly during the last 3 years.

With the rapid advance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), it is important to evaluate the relationship between TAVI volumes and outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze in-hospital outcomes after TAVI stratified according to hospital volumes. Using the National Inpatient Sample files from 2012, hospitals performing transfemoral (TF)-TAVI and transapical (TA)-TAVI were divided into high-volume and low-volume centers. A total of 7,660 patients underwent TAVI in 256 hospitals in 2012. In the TF-TAVI cohort, multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrated that low TF-TAVI volume status was an independent predictor of death and bleeding. In the TA-TAVI cohort, low volume status was a predictor of death, myocardial infarction, and need for permanent pacemaker. In addition, hospitals that performed low TA-TAVI volume were associated with significantly higher rate of death after surgical aortic valve replacement in comparison with the hospitals that perform high TA-TAVI volume (3.6% vs 2.3%, p <0.001). In conclusion, centers with lower volume of TAVI had more frequent adverse events compared with higher volume centers.

[...]it is not entirely clear from the study if the investigators excluded all patients with primary diagnosis of stroke, myocardial infarction and so forth to prevent false classification of a preexisting condition.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established and approved procedure with an increasing implantation rate, whilst the number of surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) remained unchanged (AQUA data). This demonstrates that more patients who were unsuitable for SAVR were treated with TAVI. First randomized trials have shown a significant survival benefit for TAVI compared to conservative therapy (PARTNER B) and non-inferiority to SAVR in high-risk patients (PARTNER A). The US pivotal trials demonstrated even a significant survival benefit in TAVI patients compared to SAVR. The current 5-year data of the PARTNER trials demonstrate a long-term durability of the TAVI valves, which even have superior hemodynamic parameters. Increasing experience, optimization and evolution of the TAVI systems lead to better results and lower rates of complications and mortality, as was shown by the \"real world data\" from the German aortic valve registry (GARY). The analysis of the subgroups and also the Nordic aortic valve intervention (NOTION) study showed equivalent results for TAVI and SAVR in patients with intermediate and low risk. There is a trend to expand the indications to patients with intermediate risk and the currently ongoing large prospective and randomized trials SURTAVI and PARTNER II could provide greater clarity.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an established treatment for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis in inoperable patients and high-risk patients. In Germany the TAVI procedure has now surpassed the annual numbers of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement with a recent trend towards treatment of intermediate-risk patients; however, before TAVI can also be used in patients with lower surgical risk, studies are required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of this method for this patient population.

Andreas Grüntzig can be regarded as the pioneer of modern cardiology. Based on the previous experiences of Charles Dotter in Portland, Oregon, and after many years of preparation as a young 38-year-old physician and consultant he carried out the first percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in a 38-year-old patient in Zurich in 1977, supported by the cardiac surgeons A. Senning and M. Turina. Despite high ranking publications and early preparedness to share his experiences the development of PTCA stagnated and was met with great scepticism. The technique was new, technically difficult and aimed at aortocoronary bypass surgery, which was itself still in its infancy 10 years after the introduction in Cleveland in 1968. Even after several years only two patients per week were admitted for treatment in Zurich. In a similar way the young cardiac surgeon H.R. Andersen was a pioneer in Denmark whose ideas and own experiments with a balloon catheter-assisted aortic valve implantation were not initially taken up by the leading companies of the time and publication of the data suffered lengthy delays. It took 10 years before Prof. A. Cribier in Rouen followed up his ideas and carried out the first valve implantation again in pioneer work after many years of preparation in 2002. Again, the new method for treatment of very old and high risk patients needed many years before it was accepted. The breakthrough only became possible when this new technique began to be used in cardiac surgery after the introduction of hybrid cardiac catheter operating rooms. Despite evidence-based studies innovative methods are not subject to the same criteria throughout Europe with respect to the timely introduction of innovative and validated procedures also in consideration of reimbursement and this has become an important initiative of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Background The “weekend effect” on hospital admissions has been extensively studied, showing increased risks for patients admitted on weekends than those admitted on weekdays. We aimed to assess the “weekend effect” on in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods A nationwide cohort study was conducted using the National Inpatient Sample Database. We identified 82,094 eligible patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted for TAVR between 2013 and 2021. Patients were grouped into weekend or weekday cohorts based on day of admission. Propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariate regression models were employed to evaluate outcomes. After PSM, 2,688 weekend admissions and 13,440 weekday admissions were included in the analyses. Results Multivariable regression, adjusted for propensity score, revealed that weekend admission was associated with 45% higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.13–1.85). Significant heterogeneity in mortality was observed based on admission urgency, with a 3.27 times higher increased risk of death observed for elective admissions on weekends than on weekdays (P for interaction = 0.001). Moreover, weekend admissions had significantly higher adjusted odds for cardiogenic shock, permanent pacemaker implantation, endocarditis, acute kidney injury, acute ischemic stroke, and blood transfusion. There was a trend of higher in-hospital mortality for weekend over weekday admissions throughout the study period. Conclusions Weekend admissions for TAVR had higher mortality, complications, and resource utilization, particularly in elective cases. Our findings suggest that patients admitted for TAVR during weekends are at high risk and warrant special attention.

We conducted a retrospective study using the NIS database from 2008 to 2018 to examine the most contemporary national hospitalization trends of transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement regarding volume, patient and hospital demographics and economics, resource utilization, total cost of stay, and in-hospital mortality. We demonstrate that TAVR procedures have been performed on a slow by steadily diversifying patient population while volume has grown significantly, while in-hospital mortality, length of stay, discharge home, and costs have improved, whereas these metrics have generally remained stable for SAVR. These trends will likely drive continued TAVR adoption, greatly expanding the overall aortic stenosis patient population eligible for AVR.