Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
19 September 2023

Regional differences in the utilization and outcomes of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2017 through 2019

Author: Elisa M Amoroso https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2287-4775 [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 12, Number 10
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0010
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the utilization and outcomes of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) by USA region, using discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patients & methods: All TAVR discharge encounters from June 2017–2019 were included in the analysis. Discharge encounters with bicuspid anatomy were excluded. Regional CEP utilization rates were reported. For TAVR cases performed with the Sentinel CEP device (Boston Scientific, MA, USA), multivariable logistic regression was performed to model regional differences in TAVR outcomes including: stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke/TIA combined, and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Generalized linear regression models were used to assess regional differences in length of stay (LOS) and hospital charges. Results: The Northeast had the greatest overall CEP utilization rate (11.3%), followed by the Midwest (11.1%), West (8.7%), then South (3.1%). Compared with the Northeast, the South was associated with a lower risk of stroke (OR: 0.267, 95% CI: 0.106–0.673; p = 0.005), and the West a higher risk of stroke (OR: 1.583, 95% CI: 1.044–2.401; p = 0.031). Compared with the Northeast, the West was associated with a higher risk of stroke/TIA combined (OR: 1.618, 95% CI: 1.107–2.364; p = 0.013). Compared with the Northeast, the Midwest (OR: 4.501, 95% CI: 2.229–9.089; p < 0.001) and West (OR: 5.316, 95% CI: 2.611–10.824; p < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality. Adjusted charges and LOS were highest in the West. Conclusion: Within the USA, there are regional differences in the utilization and outcomes of CEP use during TAVR. To prevent regional disparities and ensure consistent quality of care in the USA, further research is needed to determine what variable(s) may be responsible for regional differences in TAVR outcomes, with or without CEP.

Tweetable abstract

Within the USA, there are regional differences in the utilization and outcomes of cerebral embolic protection use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. #TAVR #Sentinel

Plain language summary

Regional differences in the use & outcomes of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

What is this article about?

The use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP), to mitigate the risk of stroke, during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains low despite commercial availability since 2017. This study assessed USA regional differences in the use and outcomes of CEP during TAVR.

What were the results?

The Northeast had the greatest overall CEP utilization rate (11.3%), followed by the Midwest (11.1%), West (8.7%), then South (3.1%). Compared with the Northeast, the South was associated with a lower risk of stroke, and the West a higher risk of stroke. Compared with the Northeast, the West was associated with a higher risk of stroke/TIA combined. Compared with the Northeast, the Midwest and West were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality.

What do the results mean?

To prevent regional disparities and ensure consistent quality of care in the USA, further research is needed to determine what variable(s) may be responsible for regional differences in TAVR outcomes, with or without CEP.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary table.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Taschetta-Millane M. Edwards Sapien 3 TAVI granted European approval to treat low-risk patients. DAIC http://www.dicardiology.com/article/edwards-sapien-3-tavi-granted-european-approval-treat-low-risk-patients (2022).
Google Scholar
2.
Zipp R. Boston Scientific's Lotus ditch creates “duopoly” in growing TAVR market. MedTech Dive https://www.medtechdive.com/news/Edwards-Medtronic-duopoly-in-growing-US-TAVR-market/591710/ (2022).
Google Scholar
3.
Butala NM, Makkar R, Secemsky E et al. Cerebral embolic protection and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the transcatheter valve therapy registry. Circulation 143(23), 2229–2240 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Researchers utilized data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) registry to assess transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes with vs without cerebral embolic protection (CEP). The TVT registry provides valuable data and insight into the population of interest. The TVT registry is arguably the ideal source for conducting real world outcomes research in the TAVR space. This study provided important context for my research as one of a very few sources reporting on CEP utilization.
4.
Cleveland Clinic. Stroke reduction in TAVR patients: clearer answers are on the horizon. https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/stroke-reduction-in-tavr-patients-clearer-answers-are-on-the-horizon/ (2022).
Google Scholar
5.
Saadi EK, Saadi RP, Tagliari AP, Taramasso M. Routine use of cerebral protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: what does the evidence say? Vessel Plus. 4, 41 (2020).
Google Scholar
• Contains a robust and relatively current summary on the state of CEP in TAVR, including a list of CEP devices under study and relevant clinical trial data.
6.
Teitelbaum M, Kotronias RA, Sposato LA, Bagur R. Cerebral embolic protection in TAVI: friend or foe. Interv Cardiol. 14(1), 22–25 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Muralidharan A, Thiagarajan K, Van Ham R et al. Meta-analysis of perioperative stroke and mortality in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 118(7), 1031–1045 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Haussig S, Linke A, Mangner N. Cerebral protection devices during transcatheter interventions: indications, benefits, and limitations. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 22(9), 96 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Donkor ES. Stroke in the 21st century: a snapshot of the burden, epidemiology, and quality of life. Stroke Res. Treat. 2018, 3238165 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Feigin VL, Stark BA, Johnson CO et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol. 20(10), 795–820 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Alqahtani F, Sengupta PP, Badhwar V, McCarthy P, Alkhouli M. Clinical and economic burden of acute ischemic stroke following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Struct. Heart. 3(1), 72–73 (2019).
Google Scholar
12.
Alkhouli M, Alqahtani F, Harris AH, Hohmann SF, Rihal CS. Early experience with cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. JAMA Intern. Med. 180(5), 783–784 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Researchers utilized real world data to assess TAVR outcomes with vs without CEP. The study also reported on CEP utilization.
13.
Kapadia SR, Krishnaswamy A. Cerebral embolic protection in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: connecting intuition and proof. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 14(2), 169–171 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Wood S. Data or money: what's holding back cerebral embolic protection in TAVR? TCTMD https://www.tctmd.com/news/data-or-money-whats-holding-back-cerebral-embolic-protection-tavr (2022).
Google Scholar
15.
Young K. CMS clears payment for Boston Scientific's newly bought Sentinel. MedTech Dive https://www.medtechdive.com/news/cms-clears-payment-for-boston-scientifics-newly-bought-sentinel/529317/ (2022).
Google Scholar
16.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare Program; Hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and policy changes and fiscal year 2019 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) incentive programs (promoting interoperability programs) requirements for eligible hospitals, critical access hospitals, and eligible professionals; Medicare cost reporting requirements; and physician certification and recertification of claims. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/17/2018-16766/medicare-program-hospital-inpatient-prospective-payment-systems-for-acute-care-hospitals-and-the (2022).
Google Scholar
18.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. NIS overview. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp (2022).
Google Scholar
19.
ICD10Data.com. ICD-10-CM codes. https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes (2022).
Google Scholar
20.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Introduction to the HCUP National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2019. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/NISIntroduction2019.pdf (2022).
Google Scholar
21.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Nationwide data use agreement. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp (2022).
Google Scholar
22.
Bob-Manuel T, Heckle MR, Ifedili IA, Wang J, Ibebuogu UN. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Ann. Transl. Med. 7(5), 102 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Kanjanahattakij N, Horn B, Vutthikraivit W et al. Comparing outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with stenotic bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Cardiol. 41(7), 896–902 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Makkar RR, Yoon SH, Leon MB et al. Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis and mortality or stroke. JAMA 321(22), 2193–2202 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Medl. Care. 36(1), 8–27 (1998).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Megaly M, Sorajja P, Cavalcante JL et al. Ischemic stroke with cerebral protection system during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13(18), 2149–2155 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Researchers utilized 2017 NIS data to assess TAVR outcomes with vs without CEP. Of particular interest is the variable selection for regression analysis and the use of NIS data.
27.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). STS short-term risk calculator. https://www.sts.org/resources/risk-calculator (2022).
Google Scholar
28.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Stroke mortality by state. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/stroke_mortality/stroke.htm (2022).
Google Scholar
29.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Heart disease mortality by state. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mortality/heart_disease.htm (2022).
Google Scholar
30.
Glynn PA, Molsberry R, Harrington K et al. Geographic variation in trends and disparities in heart failure mortality in the United States, 1999 to 2017. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10(9), (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
United Health Foundation. America's health rankings 2018 annual report. https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2018-annual-report/findings-state-rankings (2022).
Google Scholar
32.
Gupta T, Kolte D, Khera S et al. Regional variations in in-hospital outcomes and healthcare resource utilization in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69(Suppl. 11), 1290 (2017).
Google Scholar
33.
Kapadia SR, Makkar R, Leon M et al. Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 387(14), 1253–1263 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Provides current discussion on the efficacy of CEP. This and the article below present data from a critical trial that will have significant impact on future research in this space.
34.
Whooley S. Boston Scientific Sentinel cerebral protection system does not meet primary endpoint. MassDevice https://www.massdevice.com/boston-scientific-data-sentinel-cerebral-protection-tct-2022/ (2022).
Google Scholar
• Provides current discussion on the efficacy of CEP. This and the article above present data from a critical trial that will have significant impact on future research in this space.
35.
Kapadia SR, Kodali S, Makkar R et al. Protection against cerebral embolism during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69(4), 367–377 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Gasior T, Mangner N, Bijoch J, Wojakowski W. Cerebral embolic protection systems for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Interv. Cardiol. 31(6), 891–898 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
37.
Schmidt T, Leon MB, Mehran R et al. Debris heterogeneity across different valve types captured by a cerebral protection system during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11(13), 1262–1273 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Carroll JD, Mack MJ, Vemulapalli S et al. STS-ACC TVT registry of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76(21), 2492–2516 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Researchers' utilized data from the TVT registry to report on TAVR trends and outcomes. As with reference 3, the TVT registry provides valuable data and insight into the population of interest. The article provides a comprehensive assessment on the state of TAVR over time.
|