Background: To explore how differences in local socioeconomic deprivation impact access to aortic valve procedures and the treatment of aortic valve disease, in comparison to other open and minimally invasive surgical procedures.
Methods and results: Procedure volume data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from 18 states from 2016 to 2019 and merged with area deprivation index data, an index of zip code-level socioeconomic distress. We estimate the relationship between local deprivation ranking and differences in volumes of aortic valve replacement, which include transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery and laparoscopic colectomy (LC). All regressions control for state and year fixed effects and an array of zip code-level characteristics. TAVR procedures have increased over time across all zip codes. The rate of increase is negatively correlated with deprivation ranking, regardless of the higher share of hospitalizations per population in high deprivation areas. Distributional analysis further supports these findings, showing that lower area deprivation index areas account for a disproportionately large share of SAVR, TAVR, and LC procedures in our sample relative to their share of all hospitalizations in our sample. By comparison, the cumulative distribution of coronary artery bypass graft procedures was nearly identical to that of total hospitalizations, suggesting that this procedure is equitably distributed. Regressions show high area deprivation index areas have lower prevalence of SAVR (β=-15.1%, [95% CI, -26.8 to -3.5]), TAVR (β=-9.1%, [95% CI, -18.0 to -0.2]), and LC (β=-19.9%, [95% CI, -35.4 to -4.4]), with no statistical difference in the prevalence of coronary artery bypass graft (β=-2.5%, [95% CI, -12.7 to 7.6]), a widespread and commonly performed procedure. In the population aged ≥80 years, results show high area deprivation index areas have a lower prevalence of TAVR (β=-11.9%, [95% CI, -18.7 to -5.2]) but not SAVR (β=-0.8%, [95% CI, 8.1 to 6.3]), LC (β=-3.5%, [95% CI, -13.4 to -6.4]), or coronary artery bypass graft (β=5.2%, [95% CI, -1.1 to 1.1]).
Conclusions: People living in high deprivation areas have less access to life-saving technologies, such as SAVR, and even moreso to device-intensive minimally invasive procedures such as TAVR and LC.
Keywords: TAVR; aortic stenosis; aortic valve replacement; disparities; social determinants of health.