Incidence, treatment, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement
- 8 July 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vol. 99 (3), 877-888
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29860
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR). Background Coronary artery disease is common in patients who undergo aortic valve replacement. However, little is known about differences in clinical features of post-TAVR or post-SAVR AMI. Methods We retrospectively identified post-TAVR or post-SAVR (including isolated and complex SAVR) patients admitted with AMI using the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2012–2017. Incidence, invasive strategy (coronary angiography or revascularization), and in-hospital outcomes were compared between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs. Results The incidence of 180-day AMI was higher post-TAVR than post-SAVR (1.59% vs. 0.72%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR AMI patients (n = 1315), compared with post-SAVR AMI patients (n = 1344), were older, had more comorbidities and more frequent non-ST-elevation AMI (NSTEMI: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; p < 0.001). After propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs (14.7% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.531), but the mortality was high in both groups, particularly in ST-elevation AMI (STEMI: 38.8% vs. 29.2%; p = 0.153). Invasive strategy was used less frequently for post-TAVR AMI than post-SAVR AMI (25.6% vs. 38.3%; p < 0.001). Invasive strategy was associated with lower mortality in both post-TAVR (adjusted odds ratio = 0.40; 95% confidence interval = [0.24–0.66]) and post-SAVR groups (0.60 [0.41–0.88]). Conclusions AMI, albeit uncommon, was more frequent post-TAVR than post-SAVR. Patients commonly presented with NSTEMI, but the mortality of STEMI was markedly high. Further studies are needed to understand why a substantial percentage of patients do not receive invasive coronary treatment, particularly after TAVR, despite seemingly better outcomes with invasive strategy.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Trends in U.S. Cardiovascular CareJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2016
- Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk PatientsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2016
- 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary SyndromesJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2014
- Validity of Myocardial Infarction Diagnoses in Administrative Databases: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE, 2014
- CorrectionCirculation, 2013
- 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial InfarctionJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2012
- Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk PatientsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Comparison and Validity of Procedures Coded With ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CA/CCIMedical Care, 2008
- Quality of Diagnosis and Procedure Coding in ICD-10 Administrative DataMedical Care, 2006
- Impact of age on management and outcome of acute coronary syndrome: Observations from the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE)American Heart Journal, 2005