In-hospital outcomes of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in Germany

Introduction!#!The effect of valve type on outcomes in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) has recently been subject of debate. We investigate outcomes of patients treated with balloon-expanding (BE) vs. self-expanding (SE) valves in in a cohort of all these procedures performed in Germany in 2018.!##!Methods!#!All patients receiving TF-TAVR with either BE (N = 9,882) or SE (N = 7,413) valves in Germany in 2018 were identified. In-hospital outcomes were analyzed for the endpoints in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, stroke, acute kidney injury, postoperative delirium, permanent pacemaker implantation, mechanical ventilation > 48 h, length of hospital stay, and reimbursement. Since patients were not randomized to the two treatment options, logistic or linear regression models were used with 22 baseline patient characteristics and center-specific variables as potential confounders. As a sensitivity analysis, the same confounding factors were taken into account using the propensity score methods (inverse probability of treatment weighting).!##!Results!#!Baseline characteristics differed substantially, with higher EuroSCORE (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001) and rate of female sex (p < 0.001) in SE treated patients. After risk adjustment, no marked differences in outcomes were found for in-hospital mortality [risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for SE instead of BE 0.94 (96% CI 0.76;1.17), p = 0.617] major bleeding [aOR 0.91 (0.73;1.14), p = 0.400], stroke [aOR 1.13 (0.88;1.46), p = 0.347], acute kidney injury [OR 0.97 (0.85;1.10), p = 0.621], postoperative delirium [aOR 1.09 (0.96;1.24), p = 0.184], mechanical ventilation > 48 h [aOR 0.98 (0.77;1.25), p = 0.893], length of hospital stay (risk adjusted difference in days of hospitalization (SE instead of BE): - 0.05 [- 0.34;0.25], p = 0.762) and reimbursement [risk adjusted difference in reimbursement (SE instead of BE): - €72 (- €291;€147), p = 0.519)] There is, however, an increased risk of PPI for SE valves (aOR 1.27 [1.15;1.41], p < 0.001). Similar results were found after application of propensity score adjustment.!##!Conclusions!#!We find broadly equivalent outcomes in contemporary TF-TAVR procedures, regardless of the valve type used. Incidence of major complications is very low for both types of valve

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and left main disease: insights from a register throughout Germany

Background!#!Recent randomized controlled trials have sparked debate about the optimal treatment of patients suffering from left main coronary artery disease. The present study analyzes outcomes of left main stenting versus coronary bypass grafting (CABG) in a nationwide registry in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).!##!Methods!#!All cases suffering from CCS and left main coronary artery disease treated either with CABG or stent, were identified within the database of the German bureau of statistics. Logistic or linear regression models were used with 20 baseline patient characteristics as potential confounders to compare both regimens.!##!Results!#!In 2018, 1318 cases with left main stenosis were treated with CABG and 8,920 with stent. Patients assigned for stenting were older (72.58 ± 9.87 vs. 68.63 ± 9.40, p < 0.001) and at higher operative risk, as assessed by logistic EuroSCORE (8.77 ± 8.45 vs. 4.85 ± 4.65, p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, no marked differences in outcomes were found for in-hospital mortality and stroke (risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for stent instead of CABG: aOR mortality: 1.08 [95% CI 0.66; 1.78], p = 0.748; aOR stroke: 0.59 [0.27; 1.32], p = 0.199). Stent implantation was associated with a reduced risk of relevant bleeding (aOR 0.38 [0.24; 0.61], p < 0.001), reduced prolonged ventilation time (aOR 0.54 [0.37 0.79], p = 0.002), and postoperative delirium (aOR 0.16 [0.11; 0.22], p < 0.001). Furthermore, stent implantation was associated with shorter hospital stay (- 6.78 days [- 5.86; - 7.71], p < 0.001) and lower costs (- €10,035 [- €11,500; - €8570], p < 0.001).!##!Conclusion!#!Left main stenting is a safe and effective treatment option for CCS-patients suffering from left main coronary artery disease at reasonable economic cost. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and left main disease: insights from a register throughout Germany. All cases with chronic coronary syndrome and left main stenosis treated in 2018 in Germany either with left main stenting or coronary bypass grafting were extracted from a nation-wide database. In-hospital outcomes were compared after logistic regression analysis