Economic Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Low Surgical Risk: Results from the PARTNER 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective.

Vein Graft Use and Long-Term Survival Following Coronary Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Although placement of at least 1 arterial graft during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has a proven survival benefit, it is unknown what degree of revascularization with saphenous vein grafting (SVG) is associated with improved survival. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine whether undergoing surgery performed by a surgeon who is liberal with vein graft utilization is associated with improved survival in patients undergoing single arterial graft CABG (SAG-CABG). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study of SAG-CABG performed in Medicare beneficiaries from 2001 to 2015. Surgeons were stratified by number of SVG utilized per SAG-CABG into conservative (≥1 SD below mean), average (within 1 SD of mean), and liberal (≥1 SD above mean). Long-term survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared among surgeon groups before and after augmented inverse-probability weighting. RESULTS: There were 1,028,264 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SAG-CABG from 2001 to 2015 (mean age 72.0 ± 7.9 years, 68.3% male). Over time, 1-vein and 2-vein SAG-CABG utilization increased, whereas 3-vein and ≥4-vein SAG-CABG utilization decreased (P < 0.001). Surgeons who were conservative vein graft users performed a mean 1.7 ± 0.2 vein grafts per SAG-CABG, whereas those who were liberal vein graft users performed a mean 2.9 ± 0.2 vein grafts per SAG-CABG. Weighted analysis demonstrated no difference in median survival among patients undergoing SAG-CABG by liberal vs conservative vein graft users (adjusted median survival difference 27 days). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SAG-CABG, there is no association between surgeon proclivity for vein graft utilization and long-term survival, suggesting that a conservative approach to vein graft utilization is reasonable.

Ninety-Day Risk-Standardized Home Time as a Performance Metric for Cardiac Surgery Hospitals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Assessing hospital performance for cardiac surgery necessitates consistent and valid care quality metrics. The association of hospital-level risk-standardized home time for cardiac surgeries with other performance metrics such as mortality rate, readmission rate, and annual surgical volume has not been evaluated previously. METHODS: The study included Medicare beneficiaries who underwent isolated or concomitant coronary artery bypass graft, aortic valve, or mitral valve surgery from January 1, 2013, to October 1, 2019. Hospital-level performance metrics of annual surgical volume, 90-day risk-standardized mortality rate, 90-day risk-standardized readmission rate, and 90-day risk-standardized home time were estimated starting from the day of surgery using generalized linear mixed models with a random intercept for the hospital. Correlations between the performance metrics were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Patient-level clinical outcomes were also compared across hospital quartiles by 90-day risk-standardized home time. Last, the temporal stability of performance metrics for each hospital during the study years was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 919 698 patients (age 74.2±5.8 years, 32% women) were included from 1179 hospitals. Median 90-day risk-standardized home time was 71.2 days (25th-75th percentile, 66.5-75.6), 90-day risk-standardized readmission rate was 26.0% (19.5%-35.7%), and 90-day risk-standardized mortality rate was 6.0% (4.0%-8.8%). Across 90-day home time quartiles, a graded decline was observed in the rates of in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality, and 90-day and 1-year readmission. Ninety-day home time had a significant positive correlation with annual surgical volume (r=0.31; P<0.001) and inverse correlation with 90-day risk-standardized readmission rate (r=-0.40; P <0.001) and 90-day risk-standardized mortality rate (r=-0.60; P <0.001). Use of 90-day home time as a performance metric resulted in a meaningful reclassification in performance ranking of 22.8% hospitals compared with annual surgical volume, 11.6% compared with 90-day risk-standardized mortality rate, and 19.9% compared with 90-day risk-standardized readmission rate. Across the 7 years of the study period, 90-day home time demonstrated the most temporal stability of the hospital performance metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety-day risk-standardized home time is a feasible, comprehensive, patient-centered metric to assess hospital-level performance in cardiac surgery with greater temporal stability than mortality and readmission measures.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in secondary mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TMVr) improves symptoms and survival for patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and severe secondary mitral regurgitation despite guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT). Whether TMVr is cost-effective from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective is unknown. METHODS: We used patient-level data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of TMVr +GRMT versus GRMT alone from an NHS perspective. Costs for the TMVr procedure were based on standard English tariffs and device costs. Subsequent costs were estimated based on data acquired during the trial. Health utilities were estimated using the Short-Form 6-Dimension Health Survey. RESULTS: Costs for the index procedural hospitalisation were £18 781, of which £16 218 were for the TMVr device. Over 2-year follow-up, TMVr reduced subsequent costs compared with GRMT (£10 944 vs £14 932, p=0.006), driven mainly by reductions in heart failure hospitalisations; nonetheless, total 2-year costs remained higher with TMVr (£29 165 vs £14 932, p<0.001). When survival, health utilities and costs were projected over a lifetime, TMVr was projected to increase life expectancy by 1.57 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.12 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £21 980, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £23 270 per QALY gained (after discounting). If the benefits of TMVr observed in the first 2 years were maintained without attenuation, the ICER improved to £12 494 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with HFrEF and severe secondary mitral regurgitation similar to those enrolled in COAPT, TMVr increases life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with GRMT at an ICER that represents good value from an NHS perspective.

Long-Term Survival After On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may be associated with increased hazard for long-term mortality as compared with on-pump CABG. We sought to evaluate risk-adjusted long-term survival after off-pump and on-pump CABG, particularly among high-volume and low-volume CABG surgeons. METHODS: We evaluated 1,235,089 isolated CABGs (off pump = 209,085; on pump = 1,026,004) performed in Medicare beneficiaries from 2001 to 2015. Long-term hazard for mortality after off-pump versus on-pump CABG was compared with Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis among all CABG surgeons as well as among high-volume and low-volume CABG surgeons, before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Among all surgeons, off-pump CABG was associated with a statistically significant hazard for mortality as compared with on-pump CABG before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (median survival: off pump 9.8 years vs on pump 10.2 years; difference in median survival -134 days; log-rank P < .001). Cox regression analysis confirmed an interaction between surgeon volume and long-term mortality. The hazard for mortality associated with off-pump CABG was decreased among high-volume surgeons (difference in median survival -84 days; log-rank P < .001) and increased among low-volume surgeons (difference in median survival -240 days; long-rank P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump CABG was associated with a significant, but clinically modest, increased hazard for mortality as compared with on-pump CABG. The hazard was reduced when off-pump CABG was performed by high-volume CABG surgeons.

Utilization, Costs, and Outcomes of Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

[Figure: see text].

Variation in Antithrombotic Therapy and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Preexisting Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antithrombotic management of patients with preexisting atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement is challenging given the need to balance the risk of bleeding and thromboembolism. We aimed to examine variation in care and association of antithrombotic therapies with 1-year outcomes of stroke, bleeding, and mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant atrial fibrillation in the United States. METHODS: Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with preexisting atrial fibrillation from November 2011 through September 2015 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry linked to the Medicare database were examined according to receipt of oral anticoagulants (OACs) or antiplatelet therapies (APTs) or a combination of these (OAC+APT) at discharge. To assess the associations of antithrombotic therapies with 1-year outcomes of stroke, bleeding, and mortality, we utilized inverse probability weighting for antithrombotic therapies and multivariable regression modeling to adjust for patient- and hospital-level variables. RESULTS: In the 11 382 patients included in our study, 5833 (51.2%) were discharged on OAC+APT, 4786 (42.0%) on APT alone, and 763 (6.7%) on OAC alone. There was significant variability in discharge medication patterns, including 42% of patients discharged without OAC therapy. In adjusted analyses, the risk for all-cause mortality and stroke was not significantly different when comparing the 3 different antithrombotic strategies. Risk of bleeding was higher with OAC+APT compared with APT alone (hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05­1.27]) and similar compared with OAC alone (hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.93­1.47]). CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variability in discharge medication patterns across US sites in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, including significant underuse of OAC in this high-risk cohort. The use of OAC+APT (versus OAC alone or APT alone) was not associated with a lower risk of stroke or mortality but was associated with increased risk of bleeding complications at 1 year compared with APT alone.

Novel Multiphase Assessment for Predicting Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction Before Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study proposes a physiologic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) that accommodates changes in systolic flow and accounts for the dynamic neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). BACKGROUND: Patients considered for transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials often screen-fail because of the perceived risk of LVOTO. In the Intrepid Global Pilot Study, assumed risk of LVOTO was based on computed tomography estimates of the neo-LVOT area computed at end-systole. However, this may overestimate actual risk. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed for screen-failed patients for potential LVOTO (n = 33) and treated patients (n = 29) with available dynamic computed tomography. A multiphase assessment of the neo-LVOT area was performed and represented as: 1) multiphase average; and 2) early systolic value. Prospective evaluation was performed in 9 patients approved for enrollment with multiphase and early systole methods that would have previously screen-failed with the end-systolic approach. RESULTS: Of 166 patients screened for possible inclusion; 32 were screen-failed for nonanatomical reasons. Screen failure for assumed LVOTO risk occurred in 37 of 134 (27.6%) patients. Retrospective analysis indicated a potential enrollment increase of 11 of 33 (33.3%) and 18 of 33 (54.5%) patients using multiphase and early systolic assessment methods. In the prospective cohort, there were no clinical observations of LVOTO 30 days post-procedure, despite assumed risk based on end-systolic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase, and specifically early systolic, assessment of the neo-LVOT may better determine risk of LVOTO with transcatheter mitral valve replacement compared with end-systolic estimates. This novel approach has the potential to significantly increase patient eligibility, with over one-half of patients previously screen-failed now eligible for treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair Versus Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Results From the COAPT Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) demonstrated that edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with the MitraClip resulted in reduced mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improved quality of life compared with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and 3 to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation. Whether TMVr is cost-effective compared with GDMT in this population is unknown. METHODS: We used data from the COAPT trial to perform a formal patient-level economic analysis of TMVr+GDMT versus GDMT alone for patients with heart failure and 3 to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation from the perspective of the US healthcare system. Costs for the index TMVr hospitalization were assessed using a combination of resource-based accounting and hospital billing data (when available). Follow-up medical care costs were estimated on the basis of medical resource use collected during the COAPT trial. Health utilities were estimated for all patients at baseline and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months with the Short Form Six-Dimension Health Survey. RESULTS: Initial costs for the TMVr procedure and index hospitalization were $35 755 and $48 198, respectively. Although follow-up costs were significantly lower with TMVr compared with GDMT ($26 654 versus $38 345; P=0.018), cumulative 2-year costs remained higher with TMVr because of the upfront cost of the index procedure ($73 416 versus $38 345; P<0.001). When in-trial survival, health utilities, and costs were modeled over a lifetime horizon, TMVr was projected to increase life expectancy by 1.13 years and quality-adjusted life-years by 0.82 years at a cost of $45 648, yielding a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40 361 per life-year gained and $55 600 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: For symptomatic patients with heart failure and 3 to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation, TMVr increases life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with GDMT at an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained that represents acceptable economic value according to current US thresholds. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01626079.

Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of TAVR: TVT Registry Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate racial disparities in the performance and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in cardiovascular diseases are well described. Whether the racial disparities observed in surgical aortic valve replacement also exist with TAVR remains unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVR between November 2011 and June 2016 were identified in the American College of Cardiology/Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We described the racial distribution, and the risk-adjusted in-hospital morbidity, and mortality stratified by race. We evaluated 1-year outcomes in a subset of patients via linkage to Medicare (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) claims. RESULTS: Among the 70,221 included patients, 91.3% were white, 3.8% were black, 3.4% were Hispanic, and 1.5% were of Asian/Native American/Pacific Islander race. This represented significant underrepresentation of nonwhite patients compared with their proportion of the population. After risk-adjustment, there was no difference in the rates of in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, vascular complications, or new pacemaker requirements among the 4 racial groups. Among 29,351 patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage, 1-year adjusted mortality rates were similar in blacks and Hispanics compared with whites, but lower among patients of Asian/Native American/Pacific Islander race (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.028). Black and Hispanic patients had more heart failure hospitalizations compared with whites (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.67; p < 0.001; and adjusted hazard ratio: 1.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 1.66; p = 0.004, respectively). These differences persisted after additional risk-adjustment for socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: Racial minorities are underrepresented among patients undergoing TAVR in the United States, but their adjusted 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes are comparable with those of white race.

Procedural Volume and Outcomes for Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: During the introduction of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States, requirements regarding procedural volume were mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a condition of reimbursement. A better understanding of the relationship between hospital volume of TAVR procedures and patient outcomes could inform policy decisions. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry regarding procedural volumes and outcomes from 2015 through 2017. The primary analyses examined the association between hospital procedural volume as a continuous variable and risk-adjusted mortality at 30 days after transfemoral TAVR. Secondary analysis included risk-adjusted mortality according to quartile of hospital procedural volume. A sensitivity analysis was performed after exclusion of the first 12 months of transfemoral TAVR procedures at each hospital. RESULTS: Of 113,662 TAVR procedures performed at 555 hospitals by 2960 operators, 96,256 (84.7%) involved a transfemoral approach. There was a significant inverse association between annualized volume of transfemoral TAVR procedures and mortality. Adjusted 30-day mortality was higher and more variable at hospitals in the lowest-volume quartile (3.19%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.78 to 3.67) than at hospitals in the highest-volume quartile (2.66%; 95% CI, 2.48 to 2.85) (odds ratio, 1.21; P = 0.02). The difference in adjusted mortality between a mean annualized volume of 27 procedures in the lowest-volume quartile and 143 procedures in the highest-volume quartile was a relative reduction of 19.45% (95% CI, 8.63 to 30.26). After the exclusion of the first 12 months of TAVR procedures at each hospital, 30-day mortality remained higher in the lowest-volume quartile than in the highest-volume quartile (3.10% vs. 2.61%; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.40). CONCLUSIONS: An inverse volume-mortality association was observed for transfemoral TAVR procedures from 2015 through 2017. Mortality at 30 days was higher and more variable at hospitals with a low procedural volume than at hospitals with a high procedural volume. (Funded by the American College of Cardiology Foundation National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.).

Hospital Resource Utilization Before and After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The STS/ACC TVT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have repeat hospitalizations for multiple conditions. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on hospitalizations in severe AS. METHODS: Using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) registry with linkage to Medicare claims, the authors examined rates of all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular hospitalizations and hospital days, as well as inpatient costs in the year pre-TAVR and post-TAVR. Multivariable modeling was used to determine rate ratios of post-TAVR versus pre-TAVR hospitalizations and costs. RESULTS: Among 15,324 patients at 328 sites with Medicare linkage undergoing TAVR, the median age was 84 years, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.0, and 61.1% patients underwent TAVR via transfemoral access. Post-TAVR, heart failure hospitalization rates and hospitalized days were reduced compared with pre-TAVR (rate ratio: 0.87 and 0.95 respectively; p < 0.01 for all). However, all-cause, noncardiovascular, and bleeding hospitalization rates and hospitalized days were increased (p < 0.01 for all). Post-TAVR hospitalizations were reduced the most among those with left ventricular ejection fraction <30%. Mean post-TAVR costs were reduced among all TAVR patients and among 1-year survivors (rate ratio: 0.95, p < 0.01; and 0.90; p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients had lower costs and fewer heart failure hospitalizations but more all-cause, noncardiovascular, and bleeding hospitalizations post-TAVR. Reduction in hospitalizations varied by specific patient subgroups, and thus, payors and providers seeking to reduce resource use may consider strategies designed to improve processes of care among patients with increased resource utilization post-TAVR as compared with pre-TAVR.

Incorporating Innovation and New Technology Into Cardiothoracic Surgery.

The appropriate implementation of new technology, root cause analysis of "imperfect" outcomes, and the continuous reappraisal of postgraduate training are needed to improve the care of tomorrow's patients. Healthcare delivery remains one of the most expensive sectors in the United States, and the application of new and expensive technology that is necessary for the advancement of this complex specialty must be aligned with providing the best care for our patients. There are a several pathways to innovation: One is partnering with industry and the other is the investigational laboratory. Innovation and the funding thereof come from both the public and private sector. Most new trials that are likely to impact cardiothoracic surgery are industry-sponsored trials to meet the requirements necessary for regulatory approval. Cost considerations are paramount when considering integration of innovative technology and treatments into a clinical cardiothoracic surgical practice. The value of any new innovation is determined by the quality divided by the cost, and lean initiatives maximize this equation. The importance and implications of conflict of interest have been a concern for physicians, particularly when new technology or procedures are incorporated into clinical practice, and full disclosures by medical professionals and others involved are essential. Our societies and associations provide a platform for presentation and peer-reviewed discussion of new procedures, innovations, and trials and provide a venue for the sharing of knowledge on the highest quality patient care through education and research.

Development and Application of a Risk Prediction Model for In-Hospital Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Report From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a serious complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), yet predictive models are not available. A new risk model for in-hospital stroke after TAVR was developed and used to estimate site-specific performance. METHODS: We included 97,600 TAVR procedures from 521 sites in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry from July 2014 to June 2017. Association between baseline covariates and in-hospital stroke was estimated by logistic regression. Discrimination was evaluated by C-statistic. Calibration was tested internally via cross-validation. Hierarchical modeling was used to estimate risk-adjusted site-specific performance. RESULTS: Median age was 82 years, 44,926 (46.0%) were women, and 1,839 (1.9%) had in-hospital stroke. Covariates associated with stroke (odds ratio) included transapical access (1.44), access excluding transapical and transfemoral (1.77), prior stroke (1.57), prior transient ischemic attack (1.50), preprocedural shock, inotropes or mechanical assist device (1.48), smoking (1.28), porcelain aorta (1.23), peripheral arterial disease (1.21), age per 5 years (1.11), glomerular filtration rate per 5 mL/min (0.97), body surface area per m2 (0.55 male; 0.43 female), and prior aortic valve (0.78) and nonaortic valvular (0.42) procedures. The C-statistic was 0.622. Calibration curves demonstrated agreement between observed and expected stroke rates. Hierarchical modeling showed 10 (1.9%) centers with significantly higher odds ratios for in-hospital stroke than their peers. CONCLUSIONS: A risk model for in-hospital stroke after TAVR was developed from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and used to estimate site-specific stroke performance. This model can serve as a valuable resource for quality improvement, clinical decision making, and patient counseling.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Intermediate Risk.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates of death or stroke at 2 years. Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for intermediate-risk patients remains uncertain. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2014, 3110 intermediate-risk AS patients were treated with TAVR or SAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 2). A total of 2032 patients were randomized to receive TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) or SAVR in the PARTNER 2A trial, whereas the PARTNER S3i registry included an additional 1078 patients treated with TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR), which offers a lower delivery profile and sealing skirt designed to reduce paravalvular regurgitation compared with XT-TAVR. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization. Other in-trial costs were assessed by linkage of trial data with Medicare claims (n=2333) or by linear regression models for unlinked patients (n=682). Health utilities were estimated using the EQ-5D at baseline and 1, 12, and 24 months. Using a Markov model informed by in-trial costs, utilities, and survival data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US healthcare system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Although procedural costs were ≈$20 000 higher with TAVR than SAVR, total cost differences for the index hospitalization were only $2888 higher with XT-TAVR ( P=0.014) and were $4155 lower with S3-TAVR ( P<0.001) owing to reductions in length of stay with TAVR. Follow-up costs were significantly lower with XT-TAVR (Δ=-$9304; P<0.001) and S3-TAVR (Δ=-$11 377; P<0.001) than with SAVR. Over a lifetime horizon, TAVR was projected to lower total costs by $8000 to $10 000 and to increase quality-adjusted survival by 0.15 to 0.27 years. XT-TAVR and S3-TAVR were found to be economically dominant compared with SAVR in 84% and 97% of bootstrap replicates, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among intermediate-risk AS patients, TAVR is projected to be economically dominant from the perspective of the US healthcare system by providing both greater quality-adjusted life expectancy and lower long-term costs than SAVR. If long-term data demonstrate comparable late mortality with TAVR and SAVR, these findings suggest that TAVR might be the preferred treatment strategy for intermediate-risk AS patients based on both clinical and economic considerations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01314313.

The 21st Century Cures Act and Early Feasibility Studies for Cardiovascular Devices: What Have We Learned, Where Do We Need to Go?

Performance of early feasibility studies in the United States can advance the goal of evaluating the safety and effectiveness of new devices aimed at unmet clinical needs and facilitating earlier access for U.S. patients to new technology. Early feasibility studies are an important component of the 21st Century Cures Act, enacted by Congress in 2016. Although regulatory processes have improved since the introduction of the Early Feasibility Studies Program, impediments at the hospital and clinical site level remain. In this paper, the authors review these issues and outline the structure and function of a clinical site consortium designed to address the problems and improve the U.S. clinical trial ecosystem.