Awad W, Mathur A, Baldock L, Oliver S, Kennon S
London Chest Hospital , London , UK.
J Med Econ. 2014 May;17(5):357-64. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.904322. Epub 2014 Mar 25.
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.
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 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.
This was a single-center retrospective evaluation, not prospectively powered to confirm differences in outcomes.
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.
在英国一家医院内,确定经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)和传统主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)术后的院内及出院后6个月资源使用情况。
对2011年1月至2012年5月期间接受TAVI或AVR治疗的患者进行本地服务评估,收集直至术后6个月的数据,数据来自医院记录并通过全科医生问卷调查获得。主要终点包括死亡率、重症监护病房/高依赖病房住院时间、住院时长(LoS)、出院去向、再入院情况以及出院后初级/二级护理资源使用情况。对年龄≥80岁(AVR≥80)且欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)评分≥10(AVR ES≥10)的AVR患者进行亚组分析,以便与“TAVI类型”患者进行更直接的比较。
除非另有说明,结果分别以TAVI组(n = 51)、AVR组(n = 188)、AVR≥80组(n = 48)和AVR ES≥10组(n = 47)的均值(标准差)给出。年龄(岁)分别为83.0(8.1)、71.2(13.1)、84.1(2.7)、79.4(7.1);EuroSCORE评分分别为24.7(11.9)、8.1(6.4)、12.0(6.0)、16.5(6.6);术后住院时长(天)分别为11.5(11.2)、10.9(10.8)、14.3(16.7)、15.2(17.7)。出院患者中,0%、7%、13%和9%在出院后30天内发生计划外心脏相关再入院。首次再入院时间分别为74.6(3-4.0)、35.0(34.2)、20.8(9.7)、22.6(14.3)天。
这是一项单中心回顾性评估,未进行前瞻性研究以证实结局差异。
尽管TAVI手术针对的是年龄更大、风险更高的人群,但其住院时长与AVR相似。最显著的是,TAVI患者在30天内无心脏相关再入院情况,且首次再入院时间明显更长。该评估表明,TAVI在临床上是合适的,并且在这个高风险群体的医院环境和出院后环境中都具有经济优势。许多接受TAVI治疗的患者被认为不适合手术,因此,TAVI提供了一种治疗方法,其结果与传统AVR相似,但没有手术相关的高风险。