Concomitant Tricuspid Repair in Patients with Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid regurgitation is common in patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation. However, the evidence base is insufficient to inform a decision about whether to perform tricuspid-valve repair during mitral-valve surgery in patients who have moderate tricuspid regurgitation or less-than-moderate regurgitation with annular dilatation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 401 patients who were undergoing mitral-valve surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation to receive a procedure with or without tricuspid annuloplasty (TA). The primary 2-year end point was a composite of reoperation for tricuspid regurgitation, progression of tricuspid regurgitation by two grades from baseline or the presence of severe tricuspid regurgitation, or death. RESULTS: Patients who underwent mitral-valve surgery plus TA had fewer primary-end-point events than those who underwent mitral-valve surgery alone (3.9% vs. 10.2%) (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.86; P = 0.02). Two-year mortality was 3.2% in the surgery-plus-TA group and 4.5% in the surgery-alone group (relative risk, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.88). The 2-year prevalence of progression of tricuspid regurgitation was lower in the surgery-plus-TA group than in the surgery-alone group (0.6% vs. 6.1%; relative risk, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.69). The frequencies of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, functional status, and quality of life were similar in the two groups at 2 years, although the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in the surgery-plus-TA group than in the surgery-alone group (14.1% vs. 2.5%; rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27 to 14.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, those who also received TA had a lower incidence of a primary-end-point event than those who underwent mitral-valve surgery alone at 2 years, a reduction that was driven by less frequent progression to severe tricuspid regurgitation. Tricuspid repair resulted in more frequent permanent pacemaker implantation. Whether reduced progression of tricuspid regurgitation results in long-term clinical benefit can be determined only with longer follow-up. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675244.).

Prospective Study of Risk Factors for Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: To examine risk factors for new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network multicenter, randomized trial of rate control versus rhythm control for POAF were included. Predictors of POAF were determined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 2104 patients who were enrolled preoperatively, 695 developed POAF (33.0%). Rates of POAF were 28.1% after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 33.7% after isolated valve repair or replacement, and 47.3% after CABG plus valve repair or replacement. Baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of POAF identified on multivariable analysis included older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.73, per 10 y), White race or non-Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.52; CI: 1.11-2.07), history of heart failure (OR 1.55; CI: 1.16-2.08), and history of hypothyroidism (OR 1.42; CI 1.04-1.94). The type of cardiac procedure was associated with an increased risk of POAF with both isolated valve repair or replacement (OR 1.33, CI 1.08-1.64) and combined CABG plus valve repair or replacement (OR 1.64, CI 1.24-2.17) having increased risk of POAF compared to isolated CABG. No preoperative cardiac medication was associated with POAF. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort of patients, older age, a history of hypothyroidism, a history of heart failure, and valve repair or replacement, with or without CABG, and White non-Hispanic race were associated with an increased risk of POAF.

A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19.

Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Rationale and design of a randomized trial evaluating an external support device for saphenous vein coronary grafts.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the most common revascularization approach for the treatment of multi-vessel coronary artery disease. While the internal mammary artery is nearly universally used to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery, autologous saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) are still the most frequently used conduits to grafts the remaining coronary artery targets. Long-term failure of these grafts, however, continues to limit the benefits of surgery. METHODS: The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial of the safety and effectiveness of a Venous External Support (VEST) device is a randomized, multicenter, within-patient trial comparing VEST-supported versus unsupported saphenous vein grafts in patients undergoing CABG. Key inclusion criteria are the need for CABG with a planned internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending and two or more saphenous vein grafts to other coronary arteries. The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial is SVG intimal hyperplasia (plaque + media) area assessed by intravascular ultrasound at 12 months post randomization. Occluded grafts are accounted for in the analysis of the primary endpoint. Secondary confirmatory endpoints are lumen diameter uniformity and graft failure (>50% stenosis) assessed by coronary angiography at 12 months. The safety endpoints are the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and hospitalization within 5 years from randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the VEST trial will determine whether the VEST device can safely limit SVG intimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing CABG as treatment for coronary atherosclerotic disease.

Developing an Institute for Health Care Delivery Science: successes, challenges, and solutions in the first five years.

Medical knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. At the same time, unexplained variations in practice and patient outcomes and unacceptable rates of medical errors and inefficiencies in health care delivery have emerged. Our Institute for Health Care Delivery Science (I-HDS) began in 2014 as a novel platform to conduct multidisciplinary healthcare delivery research. We followed ten strategies to develop a successful institute with excellence in methodology and strong understanding of the value of team science. Our work was organized around five hubs: 1) Quality/Process Improvement and Systematic Review, 2) Comparative Effectiveness Research, Pragmatic Clinical Trials, and Predictive Analytics, 3) Health Economics and Decision Modeling, 4) Qualitative, Survey, and Mixed Methods, and 5) Training and Mentoring. In the first 5 years of the I-HDS, we have identified opportunities for change in clinical practice through research using our health system's electronic health record (EHR) data, and designed programs to educate clinicians in the value of research to improve patient care and recognize efficiencies in processes. Testing the value of several model interventions has guided prioritization of evidence-based quality improvements. Some of the changes in practice have already been embedded in the EHR workflow successfully. Development and sustainability of the I-HDS has been fostered by a mix of internal and external funding, including philanthropic foundations. Challenges remain due to the highly competitive funding environment and changes needed to adapt the EHR to healthcare delivery research. Further stakeholder engagement and culture change working with hospital leadership and I-HDS core and affiliate members continues.

Two-Year Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized trial comparing mitral-valve repair with mitral-valve replacement in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, we found no significant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), survival, or adverse events at 1 year after surgery. However, patients in the repair group had significantly more recurrences of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation. We now report the 2-year outcomes of this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 251 patients to mitral-valve repair or replacement. Patients were followed for 2 years, and clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among surviving patients, the mean (±SD) 2-year LVESVI was 52.6±27.7 ml per square meter of body-surface area with mitral-valve repair and 60.6±39.0 ml per square meter with mitral-valve replacement (mean changes from baseline, -9.0 ml per square meter and -6.5 ml per square meter, respectively). Two-year mortality was 19.0% in the repair group and 23.2% in the replacement group (hazard ratio in the repair group, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.35; P=0.39). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 2 years (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score=-1.32, P=0.19). The rate of recurrence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation over 2 years was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (58.8% vs. 3.8%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of serious adverse events and overall readmissions, but patients in the repair group had more serious adverse events related to heart failure (P=0.05) and cardiovascular readmissions (P=0.01). On the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, there was a trend toward greater improvement in the replacement group (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing mitral-valve repair or replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, we observed no significant between-group difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 2 years. Mitral regurgitation recurred more frequently in the repair group, resulting in more heart-failure-related adverse events and cardiovascular admissions. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.).

Rate Control versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with increased rates of death, complications, and hospitalizations. In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation who are in stable condition, the best initial treatment strategy--heart-rate control or rhythm control--remains controversial. METHODS: Patients with new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to undergo either rate control or rhythm control. The primary end point was the total number of days of hospitalization within 60 days after randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 695 of the 2109 patients (33.0%) who were enrolled preoperatively; of these patients, 523 underwent randomization. The total numbers of hospital days in the rate-control group and the rhythm-control group were similar (median, 5.1 days and 5.0 days, respectively; P=0.76). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death (P=0.64) or overall serious adverse events (24.8 per 100 patient-months in the rate-control group and 26.4 per 100 patient-months in the rhythm-control group, P=0.61), including thromboembolic and bleeding events. About 25% of the patients in each group deviated from the assigned therapy, mainly because of drug ineffectiveness (in the rate-control group) or amiodarone side effects or adverse drug reactions (in the rhythm-control group). At 60 days, 93.8% of the patients in the rate-control group and 97.9% of those in the rhythm-control group had had a stable heart rhythm without atrial fibrillation for the previous 30 days (P=0.02), and 84.2% and 86.9%, respectively, had been free from atrial fibrillation from discharge to 60 days (P=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for rate control and rhythm control to treat postoperative atrial fibrillation were associated with equal numbers of days of hospitalization, similar complication rates, and similarly low rates of persistent atrial fibrillation 60 days after onset. Neither treatment strategy showed a net clinical advantage over the other. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02132767.).

Two-Year Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Moderate Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: In a trial comparing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone with CABG plus mitral-valve repair in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, we found no significant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) or survival after 1 year. Concomitant mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation, but patients had more adverse events. We now report 2-year outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 301 patients to undergo either CABG alone or the combined procedure. Patients were followed for 2 years for clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. RESULTS: At 2 years, the mean (±SD) LVESVI was 41.2±20.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 43.2±20.6 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean improvement over baseline, -14.1 ml per square meter and -14.6 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 10.6% in the CABG-alone group and 10.0% in the combined-procedure group (hazard ratio in the combined-procedure group, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 1.83; P=0.78). There was no significant between-group difference in the rank-based assessment of the LVESVI (including death) at 2 years (z score, 0.38; P=0.71). The 2-year rate of moderate or severe residual mitral regurgitation was higher in the CABG-alone group than in the combined-procedure group (32.3% vs. 11.2%, P<0.001). Overall rates of hospital readmission and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups, but neurologic events and supraventricular arrhythmias remained more frequent in the combined-procedure group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing CABG, the addition of mitral-valve repair did not lead to significant differences in left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years. Mitral-valve repair provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation but did not significantly improve survival or reduce overall adverse events or readmissions and was associated with an early hazard of increased neurologic events and supraventricular arrhythmias. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

Intramyocardial Injection of Mesenchymal Precursor Cells and Successful Temporary Weaning From Left Ventricular Assist Device Support in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves myocardial function, but few patients recover sufficiently for explant, which has focused attention on stem cells to augment cardiac recovery. Objective: To assess efficacy and adverse effects of intramyocardial injections of mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) during LVAD implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial involving patients with advanced heart failure, undergoing LVAD implant, at 19 North American centers (July 2015-August 2017). The 1-year follow-up ended August 2018. Interventions: Intramyocardial injections of 150 million allogeneic MPCs or cryoprotective medium as a sham treatment in a 2:1 ratio (n = 106 vs n = 53). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of successful temporary weans (of 3 planned assessments) from LVAD support within 6 months of randomization. This end point was assessed using a Bayesian analysis with a predefined threshold of a posterior probability of 80% to indicate success. The 1-year primary safety end point was the incidence of intervention-related adverse events (myocarditis, myocardial rupture, neoplasm, hypersensitivity reactions, and immune sensitization). Secondary end points included readmissions and adverse events at 6 months and 1-year survival. Results: Of 159 patients (mean age, 56 years; 11.3% women), 155 (97.5%) completed 1-year of follow-up. The posterior probability that MPCs increased the likelihood of successful weaning was 69%; below the predefined threshold for success. The mean proportion of successful temporary weaning from LVAD support over 6 months was 61% in the MPC group and 58% in the control group (rate ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.83-1.41; P = .55). No patient experienced a primary safety end point. Of 10 prespecified secondary end points reported, 9 did not reach statistical significance. One-year mortality was not significantly different between the MPC group and the control group (14.2% vs 15.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95%, CI, 0.38-2.11; P = .80). The rate of serious adverse events was not significantly different between groups (70.9 vs 78.7 per 100 patient-months; difference, -7.89; 95% CI, -39.95 to 24.17; P = .63) nor was the rate of readmissions (0.68 vs 0.75 per 100 patient-months; difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.41 to 0.27; P = .68). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with advanced heart failure, intramyocardial injections of mesenchymal precursor cells, compared with injections of a cryoprotective medium as sham treatment, did not improve successful temporary weaning from left ventricular assist device support at 6 months. The findings do not support the use of intramyocardial mesenchymal stem cells to promote cardiac recovery as measured by temporary weaning from device support. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02362646.

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation during mitral-valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, 30 to 50% present with atrial fibrillation, which is associated with reduced survival and increased risk of stroke. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation has been widely adopted, but evidence regarding its safety and effectiveness is limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned 260 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who required mitral-valve surgery to undergo either surgical ablation (ablation group) or no ablation (control group) during the mitral-valve operation. Patients in the ablation group underwent further randomization to pulmonary-vein isolation or a biatrial maze procedure. All patients underwent closure of the left atrial appendage. The primary end point was freedom from atrial fibrillation at both 6 months and 12 months (as assessed by means of 3-day Holter monitoring). RESULTS: More patients in the ablation group than in the control group were free from atrial fibrillation at both 6 and 12 months (63.2% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation between patients who underwent pulmonary-vein isolation and those who underwent the biatrial maze procedure (61.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P=0.60). One-year mortality was 6.8% in the ablation group and 8.7% in the control group (hazard ratio with ablation, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 1.84; P=0.55). Ablation was associated with more implantations of a permanent pacemaker than was no ablation (21.5 vs. 8.1 per 100 patient-years, P=0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events, overall serious adverse events, or hospital readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of atrial fibrillation ablation to mitral-valve surgery significantly increased the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year among patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, but the risk of implantation of a permanent pacemaker was also increased. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00903370.).

Managing acute cholecystitis among Medicaid insured in New York State: opportunities to optimize care.

BACKGROUND: Identifying sources of unnecessary cost within Medicaid will help focus cost containment efforts. This study sought to identify differences in surgical management and associated costs of cholecystitis between Medicaid and privately insured in New York State. METHODS: The New York State all-payer mandatory discharge database from 2003 to 2013, had 297,635 patients with Medicaid (75,512) and privately (222,123) insurance who underwent cholecystectomy for cholecystitis. Patients were stratified by insurance. Four surgical management approaches were delineated based on cholecystectomy timing: primary, interval, emergency, and delayed cholecystectomy. Delayed cholecystectomy was defined as more than one hospital visit from diagnosis to definitive cholecystectomy. Medicaid and privately insured patients were propensity score matched. Surgical management approach and associated costs were compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: A greater proportion of Medicaid patients underwent delayed cholecystectomy compared to matched privately insured patients, 8.5 versus 4.8%; P < 0.001. Primary initial cholecystectomy was performed in fewer Medicaid compared to privately insured patients, 55.4 versus 66.0%, P < 0.001. Primary initial cholecystectomy was the cheapest surgical management approach, with the median cost of $3707, and delayed cholecystectomy was the most expensive, $12,212, P < 0.001. The median cost per Medicaid patient was $6170 versus $4804 per matched privately insured patient, P < 0.001. The annual predicted cost savings for New York State Medicaid would be $13,097,371, if the distribution of surgical management approaches were proportionally similar to private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid patients with cholecystitis were more frequently managed with delayed cholecystectomy than privately insured patients, which had substantial cost implications for the New York Medicaid Program.

Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. For surgical patients with moderate regurgitation, the benefits of adding mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) are uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to CABG alone or CABG plus mitral-valve repair (combined procedure). The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ventricular remodeling, at 1 year. This end point was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 46.1±22.4 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 49.6±31.5 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean change from baseline, -9.4 and -9.3 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 6.7% in the combined-procedure group and 7.3% in the CABG-alone group (hazard ratio with mitral-valve repair, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 2.12; P=0.81). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 1 year (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score, 0.50; P=0.61). The addition of mitral-valve repair was associated with a longer bypass time (P<0.001), a longer hospital stay after surgery (P=0.002), and more neurologic events (P=0.03). Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation was less common in the combined-procedure group than in the CABG-alone group (11.2% vs. 31.0%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, deaths, readmissions, functional status, or quality of life at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, the addition of mitral-valve repair to CABG did not result in a higher degree of left ventricular reverse remodeling. Mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation but an increased number of untoward events. Thus, at 1 year, this trial did not show a clinically meaningful advantage of adding mitral-valve repair to CABG. Longer-term follow-up may determine whether the lower prevalence of mitral regurgitation translates into a net clinical benefit. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, -6.6 and -6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P=0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P=0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.).

Effect of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on CNS Infarction in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Objective: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016. Interventions: Use of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition. Results: Among 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.

The Impact of Hospital Size on CMS Hospital Profiling.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) profile hospitals using a set of 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission rates as a basis for public reporting. These measures are affected by hospital patient volume, raising concerns about uniformity of standards applied to providers with different volumes. OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively determine whether CMS uniformly profile hospitals that have equal performance levels but different volumes. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patient-level and hospital-level data using hierarchical logistic regression models with hospital random effects. Simulation of samples including a subset of hospitals with different volumes but equal poor performance (hospital effects=+3 SD in random-effect logistic model). SUBJECTS: A total of 1,085,568 Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing 1,494,993 heart failure admissions in 4930 hospitals between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008. MEASURES: CMS methodology was used to determine the rank and proportion (by volume) of hospitals reported to perform "Worse than US National Rate." RESULTS: Percent of hospitals performing "Worse than US National Rate" was ∼40 times higher in the largest (fifth quintile by volume) compared with the smallest hospitals (first quintile). A similar gradient was seen in a cohort of 100 hospitals with simulated equal poor performance (0%, 0%, 5%, 20%, and 85% in quintiles 1 to 5) effectively leaving 78% of poor performers undetected. CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the disparity of impact that the current CMS method of hospital profiling has on hospitals with higher volumes, translating into lower thresholds for detection and reporting of poor performance.

Medical management with or without interventional therapy for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA): a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of preventive eradication of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations remains uncertain. A Randomised trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA) aims to compare the risk of death and symptomatic stroke in patients with an unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation who are allocated to either medical management alone or medical management with interventional therapy. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 years) with an unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation were enrolled into this trial at 39 clinical sites in nine countries. Patients were randomised (by web-based system, in a 1:1 ratio, with random permuted block design [block size 2, 4, or 6], stratified by clinical site) to medical management with interventional therapy (ie, neurosurgery, embolisation, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination) or medical management alone (ie, pharmacological therapy for neurological symptoms as needed). Patients, clinicians, and investigators are aware of treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time to the composite endpoint of death or symptomatic stroke; the primary analysis is by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389181. FINDINGS: Randomisation was started on April 4, 2007, and was stopped on April 15, 2013, when a data and safety monitoring board appointed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health recommended halting randomisation because of superiority of the medical management group (log-rank Z statistic of 4·10, exceeding the prespecified stopping boundary value of 2·87). At this point, outcome data were available for 223 patients (mean follow-up 33·3 months [SD 19·7]), 114 assigned to interventional therapy and 109 to medical management. The primary endpoint had been reached by 11 (10·1%) patients in the medical management group compared with 35 (30·7%) in the interventional therapy group. The risk of death or stroke was significantly lower in the medical management group than in the interventional therapy group (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·14-0·54). No harms were identified, other than a higher number of strokes (45 vs 12, p<0·0001) and neurological deficits unrelated to stroke (14 vs 1, p=0·0008) in patients allocated to interventional therapy compared with medical management. INTERPRETATION: The ARUBA trial showed that medical management alone is superior to medical management with interventional therapy for the prevention of death or stroke in patients with unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations followed up for 33 months. The trial is continuing its observational phase to establish whether the disparities will persist over an additional 5 years of follow-up. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Costs of telaprevir-based triple therapy for hepatitis C: $189,000 per sustained virological response.

UNLABELLED: In registration trials, triple therapy with telaprevir (TVR), pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN), and ribavirin (RBV) achieved sustained virological response (SVR) rates between 64% and 75%, but the clinical effectiveness and economic burdens of this treatment in real-world practice remain to be determined. Records of 147 patients who initiated TVR-based triple therapy at the Mount Sinai Medical Center (May-December 2011) were reviewed. Direct medical costs for pretreatment, on-treatment, and posttreatment care were calculated using data from Medicare reimbursement databases, RED Book, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. Costs are presented in 2012 U.S. dollars. SVR (undetectable hepatitis C virus [HCV] RNA 24 weeks after the end of treatment) was determined on an intention-to-treat basis. Cost per SVR was calculated by dividing the median cost by the SVR rate. Median age of the 147 patients was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 51-61), 68% were male, 19% were black, 11% had human immunodeficiency virus/HCV coinfection, 36% had advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis (FIB-4 scores ≥3.25), and 44% achieved an SVR. The total cost of care was $11.56 million. Median cost of care was $83,721 per patient (IQR = $66,652-$98,102). The median cost per SVR was $189,338 (IQR = $150,735-$221,860). Total costs were TVR (61%), IFN (24%), RBV (4%), adverse event management (8%), professional fees (2%), and laboratory tests (1%). CONCLUSIONS: TVR and Peg-IFN accounted for 85% of costs. Pharmaceutical prices and the low (44%) SVR rate, in this real-world study, were major contributors to the high cost per SVR.

Effects of a Psychosocial Transitional Care Model on Hospitalizations and Cost of Care for High Utilizers.

Evidence of care coordination programs to reduce readmissions is limited. We examined whether a social work transitional care model reduced hospital utilization and costs with a retrospective cohort study conducted from 9/3/2010-8/31/2012. Patients enrolled in the Preventable Admissions Care Team (PACT) program were matched to controls. PACT patients received follow-up from a social worker to address psychosocial strain. PACT reduced thirty-day readmission rate by 34% (p = <0.001), Sixty-day hospitalization rate by 22% (p = 0.004); ninety-day hospitalization rate by 19% (p = 0.006), and but not 180-day hospitalization rate. Inpatient costs thirty days post-index were $2.7 million for PACT patients and $3.6 million for controls.

Prospective, multicenter study of ventricular assist device infections.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular assist devices (VADs) improve survival and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure, but their use is frequently complicated by infection. There are limited data on the microbiology and epidemiology of these infections. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients scheduled for VAD implantation were enrolled (2006-2008) at 11 US cardiac centers and followed prospectively until transplantation, explantation for recovery, death, or for 1 year. Eighty-six patients (57%) received HeartMate II devices. Data were collected on potential preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative risk factors for infection. Clinical, laboratory, and microbiological data were collected for suspected infections and evaluated by an infectious diseases specialist. Thirty-three patients (22%) developed 34 VAD-related infections with an incidence rate of 0.10 per 100 person-days (95% confidence interval, 0.073-0.142). The median time to infection was 68 days. The driveline was the most commonly infected site (n=28); 18 (64%) were associated with invasive disease. Staphylococci were the most common pathogen (47%), but pseudomonas or other Gram-negative bacteria caused 32% of infections. A history of depression and elevated baseline serum creatinine were independent predictors of VAD infection (adjusted hazard ratio=2.8 [P=0.007] and 1.7 [P=0.023], respectively). The HeartMate II was not associated with a decreased risk of infection. VAD infection increased 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio=5.6; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, multicenter study demonstrates that infection frequently complicates VAD placement and is a continuing problem despite the use of newer, smaller devices. Depression and renal dysfunction may increase the risk of VAD infection. VAD infection is a serious consequence because it adversely affects patient survival. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471795.