Outcomes of open mitral valve replacement versus Transcatheter mitral valve repair; insight from the National Inpatient Sample Database.
This is the published version of the article found in IJC Heart and Vasculature, Vol. 28, 2020. 100540
The final published version of this article can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100540
Copyright Ullah, et al.
Background: Transcatheter mitral valve repair and replacement (TMVR) is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional open-heart mitral valve replacement (OMVR). The present study aims to compare the burden, demographics, cost, and complications of TMVR and OMVR.
Methods: The United States National Inpatient Sample (US-NIS) for the year 2017 was queried to identify all cases of TMVR and OMVR. Categorical and continuous data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square and independent
Results: Of 19,580 patients, 18,460 (94%) underwent OMVR and 1120 (6%) TMVR. Mean ages of patients were 63 ± 14 years (OMVR) and 67 ± 13 years (TMVR). Both cohorts were predominantly Caucasian (73% OMVR vs. 74.0% TMVR). The patients who underwent TMVR were more likely to belong to a household with an income in the highest quartile (26.1% vs. 22.0% for OMVR) versus the lowest quartile (22.1% vs. 27.8%). The average number of days from admission to TMVR was less compared to OMVR (2.63 days vs. 3.02 days, p = 0.015). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly lower for TMVR compared to OMVR (11.56 vs. 14.01 days, p=
Conclusion: Patients undergoing TMVR were older and more financially affluent. TMVR was more costly but was associated with a shorter hospital stay and similar mortality to OMVR.