Evaluation of inferential methods for the net benefit and win ratio statistics.

General Pairwise Comparison (GPC) statistics, such as the net benefit and the win ratio, have been applied in clinical trial data analysis and design. In the literature, inferential methods based on re-sampling, asymptotic or exact methods have been proposed for these GPC statistics, but they have not been compared to each other. In this paper, the small sample bias of the variance estimation, Type I error control and 95% confidence interval coverage of the GPC inferential methods are evaluated using simulations. The exact permutation and bootstrap tests perform best in all evaluated aspects for the net benefit, while the exact bootstrap test performs best for the win ratio.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Accuracy of Internet-Based Patient Self-Report of Postdischarge Health Care Utilization and Complications Following Orthopedic Procedures: Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of patient self-report of health care utilization and complications has yet to be determined. If patients are accurate and engaged self-reporters, collecting this information in a manner that is temporally proximate to the health care utilization events themselves may prove valuable to health care organizations undertaking quality improvement initiatives for which such data are often unavailable. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of patient self-report of health care utilization and complications in the 90 days following orthopedic procedures using an automated digital patient engagement platform. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter real-world observational cohort study across 10 orthopedic practices in California and Nevada. A total of 371 Anthem members with claims data meeting inclusion criteria who had undergone orthopedic procedures between March 1, 2015, and July 1, 2016, at participating practices already routinely using an automated digital patient engagement platform for asynchronous remote guidance and telemonitoring were sent surveys through the platform (in addition to the other materials being provided to them through the platform) regarding 90-day postencounter health care utilization and complications. Their self-reports to structured survey questions of health care utilization and complications were compared to claims data as a reference. RESULTS: The mean age of the 371 survey recipients was 56.5 (SD 15.7) years, 48.8% (181/371) of whom were female; 285 individuals who responded to 1 or more survey questions had a mean age of 56.9 (SD 15.4) years and a 49.5% (141/285) female distribution. There were no significant differences in demographics or event prevalence rates between responders and nonresponders. With an overall survey completion rate of 76.8% (285/371), patients were found to have accuracy of self-report characterized by a kappa of 0.80 and agreement of 0.99 and a kappa of 1.00 and agreement of 1.00 for 90-day hospital admissions and pulmonary embolism, respectively. Accuracy of self-report of 90-day emergency room/urgent care visits and of surgical site infection were characterized by a kappa of 0.45 and agreement of 0.96 and a kappa of 0.53 and agreement of 0.97, respectively. Accuracy for other complications such as deep vein thrombosis, hemorrhage, severe constipation, and fracture/dislocation was lower, influenced by low event prevalence rates within our sample. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter observational cohort study using an automated internet-based digital patient engagement platform, we found that patients were most accurate self-reporters of 90-day hospital admissions and pulmonary embolism, followed by 90-day surgical site infection and emergency room/urgent care visits. They were less accurate for deep vein thrombosis and least accurate for hemorrhage, severe constipation, and fracture/dislocation. A total of 76.8% (285/371) of patients completed surveys without the need for clinical staff to collect responses, suggesting the acceptability to patients of internet-based survey dissemination from and collection by clinical teams. While our methods enabled detection of events outside of index institutions, assessment of accuracy of self-report for presence and absence of events and nonresponse bias analysis, low event prevalence rates, particularly for several of the complications, limit the conclusions that may be drawn for some of the findings. Nevertheless, this investigation suggests the potential that engaging patients in self-report through such survey modalities may offer for the timely and accurate measurement of matters germane to health care organizations engaged in quality improvement efforts post discharge.

Effectiveness of an Automated Digital Remote Guidance and Telemonitoring Platform on Costs, Readmissions, and Complications After Hip and Knee Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: The impact of a new class of automated digital patient engagement (DPE) platforms on potentially avoidable costs, hospital admissions, and complications after discharge following hip and knee arthroplasties has not been established. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter observational cohort study comparing claims data for potentially avoidable costs, hospital admissions, and complications for 90 days after discharge following hip and knee arthroplasties at 10 practice sites in CA and NV. One hundred eighty-six patients, enrolled between 2014 and 2016 on an automated DPE platform receiving guidance and remote monitoring perioperatively, were compared with 372 patients who underwent the same procedures from the same physicians within 3 years immediately preceding platform implementation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with $0.00 in 90-day target costs because of potentially avoidable utilization within the platform's influence. Secondary end points included rates of potentially avoidable 90-day hospital admissions and composite complications. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent and 84.7% of the study and baseline cohorts, respectively, had $0.00 in target costs (P = .004), with a mean savings of $656.52/patient (P = .006). The baseline and study cohorts had 3.0% and 1.6% 90-day hospital admission rates (relative risk 0.545; 0.154, 1.931, P = .40), and 15.3% and 7.0% composite complication rates, respectively (relative risk 0.456; 0.256, 0.812, P = .004). CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled on an automated DPE platform after hip and knee arthroplasties demonstrated a significant reduction in potentially avoidable 90-day costs, a 45.4% nonsignificant relative reduction in 90-day hospital admissions, and a 54.4% significant relative reduction in 90-day complications.

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on the early results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery. However, little information is available about the late clinical outcomes in such patients. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 21 experienced valve centres in Canada, Germany, and the USA. We enrolled patients with severe symptomatic inoperable aortic stenosis and randomly assigned (1:1) them to transfemoral TAVR or to standard treatment, which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The randomisation was done centrally, and sites learned of the assignment only after a patient had been screened, consented, and entered into the database. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population, here we present the prespecified findings after 5 years. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3015 patients, of whom 358 were enrolled (mean age 83 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 11·7%, 54% female). 179 were assigned to TAVR treatment and 179 were assigned to standard treatment. 20 patients crossed over from the standard treatment group and ten withdrew from study, leaving only six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study. The risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71·8% in the TAVR group versus 93·6% in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·39-0·65; p<0·0001). At 5 years, 42 (86%) of 49 survivors in the TAVR group had New York Heart Association class 1 or 2 symptoms compared with three (60%) of five in the standard treatment group. Echocardiography after TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1·52 cm(2) at 5 years, mean gradient 10·6 mm Hg at 5 years), with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. INTERPRETATION: TAVR is more beneficial than standard treatment for treatment of inoperable aortic stenosis. TAVR should be strongly considered for patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and functional status. Appropriate selection of patients will help to maximise the benefit of TAVR and reduce mortality from severe comorbidities. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that mortality at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We report here the 5-year outcomes. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 25 hospitals, in Canada (two), Germany (one), and the USA (23). We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial tissue valve by either a transfemoral or transapical approach. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population at 1 year, we present here predefined outcomes at 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3105 patients, of whom 699 were enrolled (348 assigned to TAVR, 351 assigned to SAVR). Overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 11·7%. At 5 years, risk of death was 67·8% in the TAVR group compared with 62·4% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·24; p=0·76). We recorded no structural valve deterioration requiring surgical valve replacement in either group. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in 40 (14%) of 280 patients in the TAVR group and two (1%) of 228 in the SAVR group (p<0·0001), and was associated with increased 5-year risk of mortality in the TAVR group (72·4% for moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 56·6% for those with mild aortic regurgitation or less; p=0·003). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that TAVR as an alternative to surgery for patients with high surgical risk results in similar clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

Rationale and design of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to UNload the Left ventricle in patients with ADvanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial.

BACKGROUND: Coexistence of moderate aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is not uncommon. Moderate AS increases afterload, whereas pharmacologic reduction of afterload is a pillar of contemporary HF management. HYPOTHESIS: Unloading the left ventricle by reducing the transaortic gradient with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS and HF with reduced ejection fraction. STUDY DESIGN: The TAVR UNLOAD (NCT02661451) is an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in addition to optimal heart failure therapy (OHFT) vs OHFT alone in patients with moderate AS (defined by a mean transaortic gradient ≥20 mm Hg and <40 mm Hg, and an aortic valve area >1.0 cm2 and ≤1.5 cm2 at rest or after dobutamine stress echocardiography) and reduced ejection fraction. A total of 600 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion. Clinical follow-up is scheduled at 1, 6, and 12 months, and 2 years after randomization. The primary end point is the hierarchical occurrence of all-cause death, disabling stroke, hospitalizations related to HF, symptomatic aortic valve disease or nondisabling stroke, and the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 1 year. Secondary end points capture effects on clinical outcome, biomarkers, echocardiographic parameters, and quality of life. SUMMARY: The TAVR UNLOAD trial aims to test the hypothesis that TAVR on top of OHFT improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Long-term outcomes of inoperable patients with aortic stenosis randomly assigned to transcatheter aortic valve replacement or standard therapy.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) study, 358 patients were randomly assigned to TAVR or standard therapy. We report the 3-year outcomes on these patients, and the pooled outcomes for all randomly assigned inoperable patients (n=449) in PARTNER, as well, including the randomized portion of the continued access study (n=91). The 3-year mortality rate in the TAVR and standard therapy groups was 54.1% and 80.9%, respectively (P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.68; P<0.001). In survivors, there was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class sustained at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of strokes at 3-year follow-up was 15.7% in TAVR patients versus 5.5% in patients undergoing standard therapy (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.26; P=0.012); however, the composite of death or strokes was significantly lower after TAVR versus standard therapy (57.4% versus 80.9%, P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.77; P<0.001). Echocardiography showed a sustained increase in aortic valve area and decrease in transvalvular gradient after TAVR. Analysis of the 449 pooled randomly assigned patients (TAVR, n=220; standard therapy, n=229) demonstrated significant improvement in all-cause mortality and functional status during early and 3-year follow-up. The results of the pooled cohort were similar to the results obtained from the pivotal PARTNER trial. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR resulted in better survival and functional status in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis with durable hemodynamic benefit on long-term follow-up. However, high residual mortality, even in successfully treated TAVR patients, highlights the need for more strategic patient selection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is the recommended therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable candidates for surgery. The outcomes beyond 1 year in such patients are not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to transfemoral TAVR or to standard therapy (which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty). Data on 2-year outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients underwent randomization at 21 centers. The rates of death at 2 years were 43.3% in the TAVR group and 68.0% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001), and the corresponding rates of cardiac death were 31.0% and 62.4% (P<0.001). The survival advantage associated with TAVR that was seen at 1 year remained significant among patients who survived beyond the first year (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.92; P=0.02 with the use of the log-rank test). The rate of stroke was higher after TAVR than with standard therapy (13.8% vs. 5.5%, P=0.01), owing, in the first 30 days, to the occurrence of more ischemic events in the TAVR group (6.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.02) and, beyond 30 days, to the occurrence of more hemorrhagic strokes in the TAVR group (2.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.16). At 2 years, the rate of rehospitalization was 35.0% in the TAVR group and 72.5% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001). TAVR, as compared with standard therapy, was also associated with improved functional status (P<0.001). The data suggest that the mortality benefit after TAVR may be limited to patients who do not have extensive coexisting conditions. Echocardiographic analysis showed a sustained increase in aortic-valve area and a decrease in aortic-valve gradient, with no worsening of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVR reduced the rates of death and hospitalization, with a decrease in symptoms and an improvement in valve hemodynamics that were sustained at 2 years of follow-up. The presence of extensive coexisting conditions may attenuate the survival benefit of TAVR. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with severe aortic stenosis and coexisting conditions are not candidates for surgical replacement of the aortic valve. Recently, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has been suggested as a less invasive treatment for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis, whom surgeons considered not to be suitable candidates for surgery, to standard therapy (including balloon aortic valvuloplasty) or transfemoral transcatheter implantation of a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve. The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients with aortic stenosis who were not considered to be suitable candidates for surgery underwent randomization at 21 centers (17 in the United States). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause (Kaplan­Meier analysis) was 30.7% with TAVI, as compared with 50.7% with standard therapy (hazard ratio with TAVI, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.74; P<0.001). The rate of the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization was 42.5% with TAVI as compared with 71.6% with standard therapy (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59; P<0.001). Among survivors at 1 year, the rate of cardiac symptoms (New York Heart Association class III or IV) was lower among patients who had undergone TAVI than among those who had received standard therapy (25.2% vs. 58.0%, P<0.001). At 30 days, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, was associated with a higher incidence of major strokes (5.0% vs. 1.1%, P=0.06) and major vascular complications (16.2% vs. 1.1%, P<0.001). In the year after TAVI, there was no deterioration in the functioning of the bioprosthetic valve, as assessed by evidence of stenosis or regurgitation on an echocardiogram. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, significantly reduced the rates of death from any cause, the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization, and cardiac symptoms, despite the higher incidence of major strokes and major vascular events. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Thirty-day results of the SAPIEN aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome (SOURCE) Registry: A European registry of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN valve.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was developed to mitigate the mortality and morbidity associated with high-risk traditional aortic valve replacement. The Edwards SAPIEN valve was approved for transcatheter aortic valve implantation transfemoral delivery in the European Union in November 2007 and for transapical delivery in January 2008. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome (SOURCE) Registry was designed to assess the initial clinical results of the Edwards SAPIEN valve in consecutive patients in Europe after commercialization. Cohort 1 consists of 1038 patients enrolled at 32 centers. Patients who were treated with the transapical approach (n=575) suffered more comorbidities than the transfemoral patients (n=463), resulting in a significantly higher logistic EuroSCORE (29.1% versus 25.7%; P<0.001). Therefore, these groups are considered different, and outcomes cannot be compared. Overall short-term procedural success was observed in 93.8%. The incidence of valve embolization was 0.3% (n=3), and coronary obstruction was reported for 0.6% (n=6 cases). Incidence of stroke was 2.5% and similar for both procedural approaches. Thirty-day mortality was 6.3% in transfemoral patients and 10.3% in transapical patients. The occurrence of vascular complications was not a predictor of <30-day mortality in the transfemoral population. CONCLUSIONS: Technical proficiency can be learned and adapted readily as demonstrated by the short-term procedural success rate and low 30-day mortality rates reported in the SOURCE Registry. Specific complication management and refinement of patient selection are needed to further improve outcomes.

Outcomes of inoperable symptomatic aortic stenosis patients not undergoing aortic valve replacement: insight into the impact of balloon aortic valvuloplasty from the PARTNER trial (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valve trial).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report is to characterize the impact of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in patients not undergoing aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial. BACKGROUND: The PARTNER trial is the only randomized trial with independently adjudicated data of inoperable severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients, allowing outcome analysis of unoperated-on patients. METHODS: The design and initial results of the PARTNER trial (Cohort B) were reported previously. After excluding patients with pre-randomization BAV, we compared patients undergoing BAV within 30 days of randomization (BAV group) with those not having BAV within 30 days of randomization (no BAV group) to characterize the use and impact of BAV. RESULTS: In the PARTNER Cohort B study, 179 inoperable patients were randomized to standard treatment including 39 patients (21.8%) who had undergone a BAV before randomization (previous BAV group). Of the 140 patients who did not have BAV before enrollment in the study, 102 patients (73%) had BAV within 30 days of study randomization (BAV group). Survival at 3 months was greater in the BAV group compared with the no BAV group (88.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.0% to 94.5% vs. 73.0%; 95% CI: 58.8% to 87.4%). However, survival was similar at 6-month follow-up (74.5%; 95% CI: 66.1% to 83.0% vs. 73.1%; 58.8% to 87.4%). There was improvement in quality of life parameters when paired comparisons were made between baseline and 30 days and 6 months between the BAV and no BAV groups, but this effect was lost at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: BAV improves functional status and survival in the short term, but these benefits are not sustained. BAV for aortic stenosis patients who cannot undergo aortic valve replacement is a useful palliative therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).

Prosthesis-related complications: first-year annual rates.

The rates of valve-related complications determine the clinical performance of biological and mechanical heart valve prostheses by valve position. The crude rates of valve-related complications within the first year after implantation have not been previously reported. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States guidance document for the performance of new heart valve prostheses uses objective performance criteria (OPC) as target values for valve-related complications. The FDA requirement for each valve-related complication is that the rate cannot be greater than twice the OPC. This report provides the first-year rates of valve-related complications from a university database of over 7,000 implants, followed longitudinally between 1982 and 1999, of currently marketed biological and mechanical heart valve prostheses. The aim of this report was to provide an additional method for consideration by regulatory authorities in determination of the standards of performance for pre-market approval of new prosthetic valves for heart valve replacement surgery.

Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis: a longitudinal study of echocardiography parameters in cohort A of the PARTNER trial (placement of aortic transcatheter valves).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare echocardiographic findings in patients with critical aortic stenosis following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial randomized patients 1:1 to SAVR or TAVR. METHODS: Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after the procedure and analyzed in a core laboratory. For the analysis of post-implantation variables, the first interpretable study (≤6 months) was used. RESULTS: Both groups showed a decrease in aortic valve gradients and increase in effective orifice area (EOA) (p < 0.0001), which remained stable over 2 years. Compared with SAVR, TAVR resulted in larger indexed EOA (p = 0.038), less prosthesis-patient mismatch (p = 0.019), and more total and paravalvular aortic regurgitation (p < 0.0001). Baseline echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were lower peak transaortic gradient in TAVR patients, and low left ventricular diastolic volume, low stroke volume, and greater severity of mitral regurgitation in SAVR patients. Post-implantation echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were: larger left ventricular diastolic volume, left ventricular systolic volume and EOA, decreased ejection fraction, and greater aortic regurgitation in TAVR patients; and smaller left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes, low stroke volume, smaller EOA, and prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomized to either SAVR or TAVR experience enduring, significant reductions in transaortic gradients and increase in EOA. Compared with SAVR, TAVR patients had higher indexed EOA, lower prosthesis-patient mismatch, and more aortic regurgitation. Univariate predictors of death for the TAVR and SAVR groups differed and might allow future refinement in patient selection. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).

Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease.

OBJECT: Spinal surgical outcome studies rely on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess treatment effect. A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that the extent of improvement in their numerical scores lack a direct clinical meaning. As a result, the concept of minimum clinical important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. As utilization of spinal fusion has increased over the past decade, so has the incidence of adjacent-segment degeneration following index lumbar fusion, which commonly requires revision laminectomy and extension of fusion. The MCID remains uninvestigated for any PROs in the setting of revision lumbar surgery for adjacent-segment disease (ASD). METHODS: In 50 consecutive patients undergoing revision surgery for ASD-associated back and leg pain, PRO measures of back and leg pain on a visual analog scale (BP-VAS and LP-VAS, respectively), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical and Mental Component Summaries (SF-12 PCS and MCS, respectively), and EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The following 4 well-established anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID: average change; minimum detectable change (MDC); change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis for the following 2 separate anchors: health transition item (HTI) of the SF-36 and satisfaction index. RESULTS: All patients were available for 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a statistically significant improvement was observed for all PROs (mean changes: BP-VAS score [4.80 ± 3.25], LP-VAS score [3.28 ± 3.25], ODI [10.24 ± 13.49], SF-12 PCS [8.69 ± 12.55] and MCS [8.49 ± 11.45] scores, and EQ-5D [0.38 ± 0.45]; all p < 0.001). The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS score, 2.3-6.5; LP-VAS score, 1.7-4.3; ODI, 6.8-16.9; SF-12 PCS, 6.1-12.6; SF-12 MCS, 2.4-10.8; and EQ-5D, 0.27-0.54). The area under the ROC curve was consistently greater for the HTI anchor than the satisfaction anchor, suggesting this as a more accurate anchor for MCID. CONCLUSIONS: Adjacent-segment disease revision surgery-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. The MDC approach with HTI anchor appears to be most appropriate for calculation of MCID after revision lumbar fusion for ASD because it provided a threshold above the 95% CI of the unimproved cohort (greater than the measurement error), was closest to the mean change score reported by improved and satisfied patients, and was not significantly affected by choice of anchor. Based on this method, MCID following ASD revision lumbar surgery is 3.8 points for BP-VAS score, 2.4 points for LP-VAS score, 6.8 points for ODI, 8.8 points for SF-12 PCS, 9.3 points for SF-12 MCS, and 0.35 quality-adjusted life-years for EQ-5D.

Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance.

OBJECT: Spine surgery outcome studies rely on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess treatment effect, but the extent of improvement in the numerical scores of these questionnaires lacks a direct clinical meaning. Because of this, the concept of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. As utilization of spinal fusion has increased over the past decade, so has the incidence of same-level recurrent stenosis following index lumbar fusion, which commonly requires revision decompression and fusion. The MCID remains uninvestigated for any PROs in the setting of revision lumbar surgery for this pathology. METHODS: In 53 consecutive patients undergoing revision surgery for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis-associated back and leg pain, PRO measures of back and leg pain were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively, using the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Physical and Mental Component Summary categories of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12 PCS and MCS) for quality of life, Zung Depression Scale (ZDS), and EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D). Four established anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID (average change; minimum detectable change; change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) for 2 separate anchors (health transition index of the SF-36 and the satisfaction index). RESULTS: All patients were available for 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was observed for all PROs assessed. The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (VAS-BP 2.2-6.0, VAS-LP 3.9-7.5, ODI 8.2-19.9, SF-12 PCS 2.5-12.1, SF-12 MCS 7.0-15.9, ZDS 3.0-18.6, and EQ-5D 0.29-0.52). Each patient answered synchronously for the 2 anchors, suggesting both of these anchors are equally appropriate and valid for this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: The same-level recurrent stenosis surgery-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. The "minimum detectable change" approach is the most appropriate method for calculation of MCIDs in this population because it was the only method to reliably provide a threshold above the 95% confidence interval of the unimproved cohort (greater than the measurement error). Based on this method, the MCID thresholds following neural decompression and fusion for symptomatic same-level recurrent stenosis are 2.2 points for VAS-BP, 5.0 points for VAS-LP, 8.2 points for ODI, 2.5 points for SF-12 PCS, 10.1 points for SF-12 MCS, 4.9 points for ZDS, and 0.39 QALYs for EQ-5D.

Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal surgical outcome studies rely on patient reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess the effect of treatment. A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that the extent of improvement in their numerical scores lacks a direct clinical meaning. As a result, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. Post hoc anchor-based MCID methods have not been applied to the surgical treatment for pseudoarthrosis. PURPOSE: To determine the most appropriate MCID values for visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form (SF)-12 physical component score (PCS), and European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) in patients undergoing revision lumbar arthrodesis for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: In 47 patients undergoing revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis-associated back pain, PRO measures of back pain (BP-VAS), ODI, physical quality of life (SF-12 PCS), and general health utility (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Four subjective post hoc anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID (average change; minimum detectable change; change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) for two separate anchors (health transition index (HTI) of SF-36 and satisfaction index). RESULTS: All patients were available for a 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was observed for all PROs; Mean change score: BP-VAS (2.3±2.6; p<.001), ODI (8.6%±13.2%; p<.001), SF-12 PCS (4.0±6.1; p=.01), and EQ-5D (0.18±0.19; p<.001). The four MCID calculation methods generated a wide range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS: 2.0-3.2; ODI: 4.0%-16.6%; SF-12 PCS: 3.2-6.1; and EQ-5D: 0.14-0.24). There was no difference in response between anchors for any patient, suggesting that HTI and satisfaction anchors are equivalent in this patient population. The wide variations in calculated MCID values between methods precluded any ability to reliably determine what the true value is for meaningful change in this disease state. CONCLUSIONS: Using subjective post hoc anchor-based methods of MCID calculation, MCID after revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis varies by as much as 400% per PRO based on the calculation technique. MCID was suggested to be as low as 2 points for ODI and 3 points for SF-12. These wide variations and low values of MCID question the face validity of such calculation techniques, especially when applied to heterogeneous disease and patient groups with a multitude of psychosocial confounders such as failed back syndromes. The variability of MCID thresholds observed in our study of patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion for pseudoarthrosis raises further questions to whether ante hoc or Delphi methods may be a more valid and consistent technique to define clinically meaningful, patient-centered changes in PRO measurements.