Survival After Uncomplicated EVAR in Octogenarians is Similar to the General Population of Octogenarians Without an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Objective: Long term survival after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in octogenarians remains unclear. This was evaluated by comparing octogenarians after EVAR with a matched group of octogenarians without an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the Rotterdam Study (RS). The influence of complications after EVAR on survival was also studied with the aim of identifying risk factors for the development of complications in octogenarians. Methods: Using propensity score matching (PSM), 83 EVAR octogenarians were matched for comorbidities with 83 octogenarians from the RS, and survival was compared between these two groups using Cox proportional hazard analysis. Then, complications were studied, defined as cardiac or pulmonary, renal deterioration, access site bleeding, acute limb ischaemia or bowel ischaemia, within 30 days of surgery between 83 EVAR octogenarians and 475 EVAR non-octogenarians. Also, the difference in baseline characteristics between the octogenarians with and without complications after EVAR were studied, and survival was compared between the RS controls and the complicated and uncomplicated EVAR octogenarians separately. Results: The total EVAR octogenarian population did not show an increased mortality risk compared with RS octogenarian controls (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–1.97). Post-operative complications occurred in 22 octogenarians (27%) and 59 non-octogenarians (12.4%, p < .001), mainly cardiac, pulmonary, and bleeding complications. All baseline characteristics were similar in the complicated EVAR octogenarians compared with the uncomplicated EVAR octogenarians. After uncomplicated EVAR, octogenarians had a similar survival compared with the RS controls (HR 1.

Trends in Medicare Payments for Beneficiaries With Aortic Stenosis

Background Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease with an increasing prevalence. Management of AS has changed dramatically with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR). The shift in management of AS, combined with an aging population, may increase the cost of patients with AS in the US health care system. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective cohort study, using inpatient, carrier, and outpatient data from a 20% Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries' sample from 2008 to 2019 and included beneficiaries, aged ≥65 years. We identified beneficiaries with a diagnosis of AS and stratified the sample into 3 age groups: 66 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years. We evaluated the crude and adjusted changes in annual Medicare payments (total and component) per beneficiary. We identified 1 887 340 (1.6%) Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with AS. The average annual spending for Medicare beneficiaries with AS was $19 241 in 2010 and increased annually by$301 to $23 174 in 2019 (P1.7 billion dollars. Inpatient spending increased 1.1% per year, with the highest increase in patients aged ≥85 years (1.9%). The percentage of beneficiaries undergoing surgical AVR decreased from 3.7% to 1.6%, and annual spending on surgical AVR decreased an average of 7.2% per year. The percentage of beneficiaries undergoing transcatheter AVR increased from 0% in 2010 to 3.8% in 2019, and annual spending for transcatheter AVR increased by 458.7% per year. Conclusions Although average annual Medicare spending per beneficiary modestly increased over the study period, the increase in the prevalence of AS and the proportion of beneficiaries undergoing (transcatheter) interventions for AS led to a substantial increase in overall Medicare spending among patients with AS

Racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis, management and outcomes of aortic stenosis in the Medicare population.

ImportanceAortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common heart valve conditions and its incidence and prevalence increases with age. With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), racial and ethnic disparities in AS diagnosis, treatment and outcomes is poorly understood.ObjectiveIn this study we assessed racial and ethnic disparities in AS diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries.DesignWe conducted a population-based cohort study of inpatient, outpatient, and professional claims from a 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence and Prevalence was determined among Medicare Beneficiaries. Outcomes in this study included management; the number of (non)-interventional cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery evaluation and management (E&M) visits, and number of transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE) performed. Treatment, which was defined as Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement and Transthoracic Aortic Valve Replacement. And outcomes described as All-cause Hospitalizations, Heart Failure Hospitalization and 1-year mortality.ResultsA total of 1,513,455 Medicare beneficiaries were diagnosed with AS (91.3% White, 4.5% Black, 1.1% Hispanic, 3.1% Asian and North American Native) between 2010 and 2018. Annual prevalence of AS diagnosis was lower for racial and ethnic minorities compared with White patients, with adjusted rate ratios of 0.66 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.68) for Black patients, 0.67 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.70) for Hispanic patients and 0.75 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.77) for Asian and North American Native patients as recent as 2018. After adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities, cardiothoracic surgery E&M visits and treatment rates were significantly lower for Black, Hispanic and Asian and North American Native patients compared with White patients. All-cause hospitalization rate was higher for Black and Hispanic patients compared with White patient. 1-year mortality was higher for Black patients, while Hispanic and Asian and North American Native patients had lower 1-year mortality compared with White patients.Conclusions and relevanceWe demonstrated significant racial and ethnic disparities in the diagnosis, management and outcomes of AS. The factors driving the persistence of these disparities in AS care need to be elucidated to develop an equitable health care system