A system-wide extracorporeal membrane oxygenation quality collaborative improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in adult patient populations has grown rapidly with wide variation in practices and outcomes. We evaluated the impact on patient outcomes, resource use, and costs of an initiative to coordinate and standardize best practices across ECMO programs within a large integrated health care system. METHODS: The ECMO Collaborative Project brought clinicians and service-line leaders from 4 programs within a single health care system together with operational subject matter experts tasked with developing and implementing standardized guidelines, order sets, and an internal database to support an automated quarterly report card. Patient outcomes, resource use, and financial measures were compared for the 16 months before (January 2017 to April 2018; "precollaborative," n = 185) versus the 14 months after (November 2018 to December 2019, "postcollaborative," n = 243) a 6-month implementation and blanking period. Subset analyses were performed for venoarterial ECMO, venovenous ECMO, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. RESULTS: Survival to discharge/transfer increased significantly (in-hospital mortality hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.58-0.99) for the postcollaborative versus the precollaborative period (107/185, 57.8% vs 113/243, 46.5%, P = .03), predominantly due to improvement among patients receiving venoarterial ECMO (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91). The percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO increased from 58.9% (109/185) to 70% (170/243), P = .02. Complication rates decreased by 40% (incidence rate ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72). No significant changes were observed in ECMO duration, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, or cost-per-case; payment-per-case and contribution-margin-per-case both decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The ECMO Collaborative Project improved survival to discharge/transfer, weaning rates and complications, without additional costs, through coordination and standardization across ECMO programs within a health care system.

A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS: After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Overcoming the Challenges of Conducting Early Feasibility Studies of Medical Devices in the United States.

Initial clinical studies of new medical technologies involve a complex balance of research participant benefits versus risks and costs of uncertainty when novel concepts are tested. The Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health has recently introduced the Early Feasibility Study (EFS) Program for facilitating the conduct of these studies under the Investigational Device Exemption regulations. However, a systematic approach is needed to successfully implement this program while affording appropriate preservation of the rights and interests of patients. For this to succeed, a holistic reform of the clinical studies ecosystem for performing early-stage clinical research in the United States is necessary. The authors review the current landscape of the U.S. EFS and make recommendations for developing an efficient EFS process to meet the goal of improving access to early-stage, potentially beneficial medical devices in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. BACKGROUND: TAVR is an alternative to AVR for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis based on cost, quality of life, and survival data collected in the PARTNER A (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial in which patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR. Cumulative 12-month costs (assessed from a U.S. societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared separately for the transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) cohorts. RESULTS: Although 12-month costs and QALYs were similar for TAVR and AVR in the overall population, there were important differences when results were stratified by access site. In the TF cohort, total 12-month costs were slightly lower with TAVR and QALYs were slightly higher such that TF-TAVR was economically dominant compared with AVR in the base case and economically attractive (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY) in 70.9% of bootstrap replicates. In the TA cohort, 12-month costs remained substantially higher with TAVR, whereas QALYs tended to be lower such that TA-TAVR was economically dominated by AVR in the base case and economically attractive in only 7.1% of replicates. CONCLUSIONS: In the PARTNER trial, TAVR was an economically attractive strategy compared with AVR for patients suitable for TF access. Future studies are necessary to determine whether improved experience and outcomes with TA-TAVR can improve its cost-effectiveness relative to AVR.

Inverted faces are (eventually) processed holistically.

Face inversion effects are used as evidence that faces are processed differently from objects. Nevertheless, there is debate about whether processing differences between upright and inverted faces are qualitative or quantitative. We present two experiments comparing holistic processing of upright and inverted faces within the composite task, which requires participants to match one half of a test face while ignoring irrelevant variation in the other half of the test face. Inversion reduced overall performance but led to the same qualitative pattern of results as observed for upright faces (Experiment 1). However, longer presentation times were required to observe holistic effects for inverted compared to upright faces (Experiment 2). These results suggest that both upright and inverted faces are processed holistically, but inversion reduces overall processing efficiency.

Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance.

Holistic processing (HP) of faces can be inferred from failure to selectively attend to part of a face. We explored how encoding time affects HP of faces by manipulating exposure duration of the study or test face in a sequential matching composite task. HP was observed for exposure as rapid as 50 ms, and was unaffected by whether exposure of the study or test face was limited. Holistic effects emerge as soon as performance is above chance, and are not larger at rapid exposure durations. Limiting exposure at study vs. test did have differential effects on response biases at the fastest exposure durations. These findings provide key constraints for understanding mechanisms of face recognition. These results are first to demonstrate that HP of faces emerges for very briefly presented faces, and that limited perceptual encoding time affects response biases and overall level of performance but not whether faces are processed holistically.