Abstract
Background Septal Myectomy (SM) and Alcohol Septal Ablation (ASA) improve symptoms in patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with outflow tract obstruction (oHCM). However, outcomes data in this population is predominantly from specialized centers.
Methods The National Inpatient Database was queried from 2011- 2019 for relevant ICD-9 and −10 diagnostic and procedural codes. We compared baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with oHCM who underwent SM vs. ASA. A p-value <0.001 was considered statistically significant.
Results We identified 17,245 patients with oHCM who underwent septal reduction therapies, of whom 62.5% underwent SM, and 37.5% underwent ASA. Patients who underwent SM had higher all-cause mortality (OR:2.2 [1.7-2.9]), post-procedure ischemic stroke (OR: 2.4 [1.8-3.2]), acute kidney injury (OR: 1.9 [1.7-2.2]), vascular complications (OR: 4 [2.8-5.7]), ventricular septal defect (OR: 4.6 [3.5-6.1]), cardiogenic shock (OR: 2 [1.5-2.6]), sepsis (OR: 5.2 [3.3-8.1]), and left bundle branch block (OR: 3.2 [2.8-3.7]), compared to ASA. Patients who underwent ASA had higher post-procedure complete heart block (OR: 1.2 [1.1-1.4]), 2nd-degree AV Block (OR: 2 [1.4-3]), right bundle branch block (OR: 6.4 [5.3-7.8]), ventricular tachycardia (OR:2 [1.8-2.3]), supraventricular tachycardia (OR: 1.4 [1.2-1.7]), and more commonly required pacemaker (OR: 1.4 [1.2-1.6]) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion (OR: 1.3 [1.1-1.5]) (p<0.001 for all) compared to SM.
Conclusions This nationwide analysis evidenced that patients undergoing SM had higher in-hospital mortality and periprocedural complications than ASA; however, those undergoing ASA had more post-procedure conduction abnormalities and pacemaker or ICD implantation. The implications of these findings warrant further investigation regarding patient selection strategies for these therapies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
The study does not require a trial ID as it is retrospective data, which is de-identified.
Funding Statement
The authors confirm no public or private sources of funding for the work presented in this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study does not require IRB approval as it is retrospective data, which is de-identified.
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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) offers the largest database of hospitalizations, including data on approximately 7-8 million discharges per year and representing a 20% random and stratified sample of hospital discharges in the United States, and all the data under NIS are publicly available.
