首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Comparing post-operative resource consumption following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and conventional aortic valve replacement in the UK
Authors:W. Awad  A. Mathur  L. Baldock  S. Oliver
Affiliation:1. London Chest HospitalLondonUK;2. pH AssociatesMarlowUK
Abstract:Objective:

To define the in-hospital and 6-month post-discharge resource use, following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) and conventional Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) surgery within a single UK hospital.

Methods:

A local service evaluation of patients undergoing TAVI or AVR between January 2011 and May 2012 captured data until 6-months post-procedure, collected from hospital records and via a General Practitioner questionnaire. The main end-points were mortality, time in ITU/HDU, hospital length of stay (LoS), discharge destination, re-admission, and post-discharge primary/secondary care resource use. Sub-group analyses were performed for AVR patients aged ≥80 (AVR?≥?80) and with EuroSCORE of ≥10 (AVR ES?≥?10) to allow more direct comparison with ‘TAVI type’ patients.

Results:

Results are given as means (standard deviation) for TAVI (n?=?51), AVR (n?=?188), AVR?≥?80 (n?=?48), and AVR ES?≥?10 (n?=?47), respectively, unless otherwise stated. Age in years was 83.0 (8.1), 71.2 (13.1), 84.1 (2.7), 79.4 (7.1); EuroSCORE was 24.7 (11.9), 8.1 (6.4), 12.0 (6.0), and 16.5 (6.6); post-operative LoS (days) was 11.5 (11.2), 10.9 (10.8), 14.3 (16.7), and 15.2 (17.7). For discharged patients, 0%, 7%, 13%, and 9% had unplanned cardiac-related re-admissions within 30-days of discharge. Time to first readmission was 74.6 (34.0), 35.0 (34.2), 20.8 (9.7), and 22.6 (14.3) days.

Limitations:

This was a single-center retrospective evaluation, not prospectively powered to confirm differences in outcomes.

Conclusions:

Despite TAVI being performed in an older, higher risk population, LoS was similar to AVR. Most strikingly there were no cardiac-related re-admissions within 30-days for TAVI and time to first re-admission was significantly longer. This evaluation suggests that TAVI is clinically appropriate and provides economic advantages in both the hospital and post-discharge setting in this high risk group. Many patients undergoing TAVI are considered unfit for surgery and, hence, TAVI offers a treatment that delivers similar results to traditional AVR without the high risk associated with surgery.
Keywords:Healthcare utilization  TAVI  Aortic valve replacement  Aortic stenosis  Community resource use
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号