PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Fidelis E. Uwumiro
AU  - Michael Bojerenu
AU  - Charles T. Ogbodo
AU  - Victory O. Okpujie
AU  - Cherechi O. Nwabueze
AU  - Emmanuel O. Otabor
AU  - Muhammed L. Shielu
AU  - Chuka G. Nwume
AU  - Omolade J. Oshodi
AU  - Hillary Alemenzohu
AU  - Olawale O. Abesin
TI  - A Comparative Analysis of In-Hospital Outcomes and Care Cost Between Surgical and Transcatheter Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis: Insights From the U.S Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database
AID  - 10.1101/2023.08.25.23294647
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.08.25.23294647
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/28/2023.08.25.23294647.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/28/2023.08.25.23294647.full
AB  - Background/objectives Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a preferred alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for symptomatic aortic stenosis. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and care costs of TAVR and SAVR to medical management using five years of inpatient data.Methods Adult hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis were analyzed from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2016-2020). Diagnosis and procedure variables, as well as confounders and comorbidities, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes. Multivariable regression models were utilized to assess mortality odds, length of stay (LOS), periprocedural complications, and care costs.Results Among the 364,515 admissions for aortic stenosis analyzed, the mean age was 76 ± 0.5 years, with a majority of male patients (57.8%) and White Americans comprising 85.5% of the population. SAVR was performed in 29.3% of cases, and TAVR in 50.8%. TAVR demonstrated significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared to SAVR (aOR: 0.463; 95% CI: 0.366-0.587; P < 0.001), whereas SAVR did not show a significant difference (aOR: 0.786; 95% CI: 0.601-1.029; P = 0.079). TAVR also resulted in a significantly shorter mean LOS compared to SAVR (adjusted mean LOS: 2.37; 95% CI: 2.12-2.63; P < 0.001 vs. 6.25; 95% CI: 6.00-6.50; P < 0.001). While TAVR patients had a lower likelihood of complications, they incurred higher hospital costs.Conclusion TAVR demonstrated significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality and shorter length of stay compared to medical management or SAVR. However, TAVR patients incurred higher hospital costs despite a lower likelihood of complications.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used ONLY publicly available NIS data that were originally available at: https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesIn compliance with the copyright restrictions set by the AHRQ pertaining to the distribution of HCUP databases, the database utilized in this research will not be made publicly available by the authors. However, all NIS datasets are publicly available through the authorized HCUP central distributor upon request at https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp. or via direct email to the AHRQ at hcup{at}ahrq.gov https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp.