Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to grow in the United States. There are limited data on recipients of solid organ transplant (SOT) and patients with liver cirrhosis who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR). Our study aims to evaluate outcomes in these populations. Using the national readmission database (2016 to 2020), we identified recipients of SOT and patients with liver cirrhosis without previous liver transplants who were admitted for severe aortic stenosis and underwent either TAVR or surgical AVR (SAVR). We used multivariable regression for adjusted analysis and the propensity score matching model, implementing complete Mahalanobis distance matching within the Propensity Score Caliper (0.2) to match TAVR and SAVR cohorts for outcomes. Of 3,394 hospitalizations for AVR in recipients of SOT, 2,181 underwent TAVR, and 1,213 underwent SAVR. On propensity-matched analysis, SAVR was associated with more adverse events than was TAVR, including in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs 1.1%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.49, p <0.001), acute kidney injury (43.7% vs 10.2%, p <0.001), cardiogenic shock (9.0% vs 1.6%, p <0.001), sudden cardiac arrest (15.9 vs 6.0%, p <0.001), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (28% vs 10.4%, p <0.001), and net adverse events (72.8 vs 37.6%, p <0.001). A greater median length of stay (10 vs 2 days, p <0.001) and adjusted cost ($80,842 vs $57,014, p <0.001) were also observed. The readmission rates were the same for both cohorts after a 6-month follow-up. Similarly, in 14,763 hospitalizations for AVR in liver cirrhosis, 7,109 patients underwent TAVR, and 7,654 underwent SAVR. In propensity-matched cohorts (n = 2,341), SAVR was found to be associated with greater adverse events, including in-hospital mortality (19.8% vs 10%), stroke (6.7% vs 2%), acute kidney injury (67.7% vs 30.3%), cardiogenic shock (41.9% vs 19.9%), sudden cardiac arrest (31.8% vs 13.2%, aOR 2.89), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.2% vs 35.7%), and net adverse events (86% vs 59.5%) (p <0.001). A greater median length of stay (16 vs 3 days) and cost ($500,218 vs $263,383) were also observed (p <0.001). However, the rate of readmissions at 30-day (9% vs 11.1%) and 180-day intervals (33.4% vs 39.8%) was lower for the SAVR cohort (p <0.05). In recipients of SOT and patients with liver cirrhosis, SAVR is associated with greater short-term mortality, adverse events, and healthcare burden than is TAVR. TAVR is a relatively safer alternative to SAVR in these patient populations, although further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is superior to alternative access strategies. Only transfemoral access has been shown to have better clinical outcomes than surgical aortic valve replacement. In our patient, severe calcification of the distal abdominal aorta posed difficulty in using transfemoral access for TAVR. We applied intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to the distal abdominal aorta to achieve necessary luminal gain facilitating bioprosthetic aortic valve deployment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)