We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)]. From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 ± 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation ≥moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.12; P = 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29-8.51; P < 0.001]. The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV.

Research from JAMA — Extent, Location, and Clinical Significance of Non–Infarct-Related Coronary Artery Disease Among Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Hospital performance metrics, such as 30-day mortality, are increasingly used in the context of value-based health care assessment and public reporting.^1-3 These metrics provide useful benchmarking data to various stakeholders, including surgeons, patients, policy makers, and payers. For all surgical procedures, monitoring of 30-day outcomes is also mandated for reimbursements by insurance payers and is relatively cheaper and easier to implement from a hospital efficiency standpoint. However, with increasing scrutiny of hospital outcomes in the era of episode-based or bundled payment models implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS),⁴ there has been interest in tracking longer-term patient outcomes for a few reasons. First is that 30-day mortality may not capture all surgery- and non–surgery-related deaths.^1-3 Second, there is a possibility that limiting follow-up to only 30 days may be associated with an increased risk of patients being unavailable for follow-up. Third, there is also some concern for potential perverse incentive to prolong the life of a dying patient past the 30-day barrier and to transfer the patient to another facility before the 30-day cutoff.⁵ All these instances can lead to underreporting of true mortality rates from the index procedures.^6,7

Background and Aims: Traumatic pancreatic injury is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, and the management strategies associated with the best clinical outcomes are unknown. Our aims were to identify the incidence of traumatic pancreatic injury in adult patients in the United States using the National Trauma Data Bank, evaluate management strategies and clinical outcomes, and identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed National Trauma Data Bank data from 2007 to 2011, and identified patients ⩾14 years old with pancreatic injuries either due to blunt or penetrating trauma. Patient characteristics, injury-associated factors, clinical outcomes, and in-hospital mortality rates were evaluated and compared between two groups stratified by injury type (blunt vs penetrating trauma). Statistical analyses used included Pearson’s chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, and analysis of variance. Factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Results: We identified 8386 (0.3%) patients with pancreatic injuries. Of these, 3244 (38.7%) had penetrating injuries and 5142 (61.3%) had blunt injuries. Penetrating traumas were more likely to undergo surgical management compared with blunt traumas. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 21.2% (n = 1776), with penetrating traumas more likely to be associated with mortality (26.5% penetrating vs 17.8% blunt, p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality rates varied by management strategy, from 6.7% for those treated with a drainage procedure to >15% in those treated with pancreatic repair or resection. Adjusted analysis identified drainage procedure as an independent factor associated with decreased mortality. Independent predictors of mortality included age ⩾70 years, injury severity score ⩾15, Glasgow Coma Scale motor <6, gunshot wound, and associated injuries. Conclusions: Traumatic pancreatic injuries are a rare but critical condition. The incidence of pancreatic injury was 0.3%. The overall morbidity and mortality rates were 53% and 21.2%, respectively. Patients undergoing less invasive procedures, such as drainage, were associated with improved outcomes.