Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Association Between Past and Present Operative Mortality in Congenital Heart Surgery: An Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database.

BACKGROUND: Mortality after congenital heart surgery is an important metric across benchmarking, quality, and reporting initiatives. All rely on estimates from prior years, and how well these reflect current outcomes is unclear. METHODS: Index operations from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Database (2014-2019) were included. Adjusted operative mortality in "past" 4-year and 1-year intervals vs the most recent year ("present") was evaluated using Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with results presented as odds ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: Among 115,699 operations (106 hospitals), overall present observed mortality was 2.5%. Regression to the mean was evident, and individual hospital's present vs past adjusted mortality were only weakly correlated (-0.11 vs past 1-year data, 0.22 vs past 4-year data). A significant relationship was found between past and present mortality only for the group of hospitals in the highest mortality quartile, most prominent for past 4-year data (adjusted odds ratio vs lowest mortality quartile, 2.04; 95% CrI, 1.44-2.80). The proportion of present hospital mortality variation explained by past mortality quartile was 52% (95% CrI, 20%-90%) using past 4-year data and only 27% (95% CrI, 92%-83%) using past 1-year data. Overall 66% of hospitals changed mortality quartiles from past to present (30% by ≥2 quartiles). CONCLUSIONS: Past mortality relates to present primarily for groups of hospitals at the extremes, with past 4-year data more informative than past 1-year data. For individual hospitals, past may differ from present, regression to the mean is common, and many change quartiles. Past mortality should be used thoughtfully and not as the sole factor informing present decision making.

Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive-assigned women and 74.8% of invasive-assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4-year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline-directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. REGISTRATION: URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Body Mass Index and Clinical and Health Status Outcomes in Chronic Coronary Disease and Advanced Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether an obesity paradox (lower event rates with higher body mass index [BMI]) exists in participants with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic coronary disease in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-CKD, and whether BMI modified the effect of initial treatment strategy. METHODS: Baseline BMI was analyzed as both a continuous and categorical variable (< 25, ≥ 25 to < 30, ≥ 30 kg/m2). Associations between BMI and the primary outcome of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (D/MI), and all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and MI individually were estimated. Associations with health status were also evaluated using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7, the Rose Dyspnea Scale, and the EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 vs < 25 kg/m2 demonstrated increased risk for MI (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval] = 1.81 [1.12-2.92]) and for D/MI (HR 1.45 [1.06-1.96]) with a HR for MI of 1.22 (1.05-1.40) per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI in unadjusted analysis. In multivariate analyses, a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 was marginally associated with D/MI (HR 1.43 [1.00-2.04]) and greater dyspnea throughout follow-up (P < .05 at all time points). Heterogeneity of treatment effect between baseline BMI was not evident for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, an obesity paradox was not detected. Higher BMI was associated with worse dyspnea, and a trend toward increased D/MI and MI risk. Larger studies to validate these findings are warranted.

Contemporary Relationship Between Hospital Volume and Outcomes in Congenital Heart Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining the volume-outcome relationship in congenital heart surgery (CHS) are more than a decade old. Since then, mortality has declined, and case-mix adjustment has evolved. We determined the current relationship between hospital CHS volume and outcomes. METHODS: Patients aged ≤18 years undergoing index operations in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery Database (2017-2020) were included. Associations between annual hospital volume and case-mix-adjusted operative mortality, major complications, failure to rescue (FTR), and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) were assessed using Bayesian hierarchical models, overall, by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (STAT) category, and for the Norwood procedure. RESULTS: Across 101 centers (76,714 index operations), median annual volume was 144 operations/y. Operative mortality was 2.7%. Lower-volume hospitals had higher mortality, with an apparent transition zone at ∼190 operations/y (95% credible interval [CrI], 115-450 operations/y), below which a sustained uptick in the estimated odds of death occurred. Odds of death compared with a 450 operations/y reference were 50 operations/y (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% CrI, 1.41-2.37), 100 operations/y (OR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.08-1.71), 200 operations/y (OR, 0.92; 95% CrI, 0.1-1.18), 300 operations/y (OR, 0.89; 95% CrI, 0.76-1.04). The volume-outcome effect was more apparent for STAT 4 to 5 than STAT 1 to 3 operations. In the overall cohort, PLOS and complications were similar across hospital volumes, whereas FTR rates were higher at lower-volume hospitals. Lower-volume hospitals had worse outcomes after the Norwood procedure, most notably mortality and FTR. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital volume is associated with mortality and FTR after CHS. The relationship is strongest for high-risk operations. These data can inform ongoing initiatives to improve CHS care.

Impact of Complete Revascularization in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic complete revascularization (ACR) and functional complete revascularization (FCR) have been associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction (MI) in some prior studies. The impact of complete revascularization (CR) in patients undergoing an invasive (INV) compared with a conservative (CON) management strategy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: Among patients with chronic coronary disease without prior coronary artery bypass grafting randomized to INV vs CON management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, we examined the following: 1) the outcomes of ACR and FCR compared with incomplete revascularization; and 2) the potential impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON management. METHODS: ACR and FCR in the INV group were assessed at an independent core laboratory. Multivariable-adjusted outcomes of CR were examined in INV patients. Inverse probability weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR been achieved in all INV patients compared with CON management. RESULTS: ACR and FCR were achieved in 43.4% and 58.4% of 1,824 INV patients. ACR was associated with reduced 4-year rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared with incomplete revascularization. By inverse probability weighted modeling, ACR in all 2,296 INV patients compared with 2,498 CON patients was associated with a lower 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI (difference -3.5; 95% CI: -7.2% to 0.0%). In comparison, the event rate difference of cardiovascular death or MI for INV minus CON in the overall ISCHEMIA trial was -2.4%. Results were similar but less pronounced with FCR. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of an INV strategy may be improved if CR (especially ACR) is achieved. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Impact of complete revascularization in the IschemiaTrial

BACKGROUND: Anatomic complete revascularization (ACR) and functional complete revascularization (FCR) have been associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction (MI) in some prior studies. The impact of complete revascularization (CR) in patients undergoing an invasive (INV) compared with a conservative (CON) management strategy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: Among patients with chronic coronary disease without prior coronary artery bypass grafting randomized to INV vs CON management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, we examined the following: 1) the outcomes of ACR and FCR compared with incomplete revascularization; and 2) the potential impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON management. METHODS: ACR and FCR in the INV group were assessed at an independent core laboratory. Multivariable-adjusted outcomes of CR were examined in INV patients. Inverse probability weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR been achieved in all INV patients compared with CON management. RESULTS: ACR and FCR were achieved in 43.4% and 58.4% of 1,824 INV patients. ACR was associated with reduced 4-year rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared with incomplete revascularization. By inverse probability weighted modeling, ACR in all 2,296 INV patients compared with 2,498 CON patients was associated with a lower 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI (difference -3.5; 95% CI: -7.2% to 0.0%). In comparison, the event rate difference of cardiovascular death or MI for INV minus CON in the overall ISCHEMIA trial was -2.4%. Results were similar but less pronounced with FCR. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of an INV strategy may be improved if CR (especially ACR) is achieved. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Health status and clinical outcomes in older adults with chronic coronary disease: the ISCHEMIA trial

BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Health Status and Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults With Chronic Coronary Disease: The ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Risk of Surgical Mitral Valve Repair for Primary Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Risk estimation for surgical intervention is an essential component of heart team shared decision-making. However, current mitral valve (MV) surgery risk models used in practice lack etiologic or procedural specificity. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish a comprehensive method for assessment of operative risk of MV repair of primary mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: A novel etiology and procedure-specific algorithm identified 53,462 consecutive (July 2014 to June 2020) intention-to-treat MV repair patients with primary MR from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Risk models were fit for 30-day operative mortality, mortality and/or major morbidity, and conversion-to-replacement (CONV). As-treated mortality and morbidity models were derived separately. RESULTS: Event rates for mortality (n = 619; 1.16%), mortality plus morbidity (n = 4,746; 8.88%), and CONV (n = 3,399; 6.36%) were low. Mortality was higher in CONV patients vs repair (3.18% vs 1.02%). All event rates were lower with increasing program volumes. The mortality risk model had excellent discrimination (AUC: 0.807) and calibration and confirmed very low mortality risk for isolated MV repair for primary MR, with mean mortality risk of 1.16% and median of 0.55% (IQR: 0.30%-1.17%) with 90th and 95th percentiles 2.48% and 3.99%, respectively. The mortality risk was <0.5% in patients <65 years of age, with 97% of the total population across age groups having a risk of <3%. Only 1 in 4 patients age 75 or older had >3% estimated risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This etiologic and procedure-specific risk model establishes that the contemporary mortality risk of MV repair for primary MR is <1% for the vast majority of patients.

Risk of Surgical Mitral Valve Repair for Primary Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Risk estimation for surgical intervention is an essential component of heart team shared decision-making. However, current mitral valve (MV) surgery risk models used in practice lack etiologic or procedural specificity. The purpose of this study was to establish a comprehensive method for assessment of operative risk of MV repair of primary mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: A novel etiology and procedure-specific algorithm identified 53,462 consecutive (July 2014 to June 2020) intention-to-treat MV repair patients with primary MR from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Risk models were fit for 30-day operative mortality, mortality and/or major morbidity, and conversion-to-replacement (CONV). As-treated mortality and morbidity models were derived separately. RESULTS: Event rates for mortality (n = 619; 1.16%), mortality plus morbidity (n = 4746; 8.88%), and CONV (n = 3399; 6.36%) were low. Mortality was higher in CONV patients vs repair (3.18% vs 1.02%). All event rates were lower with increasing program volumes. The mortality risk model had excellent discrimination (AUC: 0.807) and calibration and confirmed very low mortality risk for isolated MV repair for primary MR, with mean mortality risk of 1.16% and median of 0.55% (interquartile range: 0.30%-1.17%) with 90th and 95th percentiles 2.48% and 3.99%, respectively. The mortality risk was <0.5% in patients <65 years of age, with 97% of the total population across age groups having a risk of <3%. Only 1 in 4 patients age 75 or older had >3% estimated risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This etiologic and procedure-specific risk model establishes that the contemporary mortality risk of MV repair for primary MR is <1% for the vast majority of patients.

Development of a Novel Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Congenital Mortality Risk Model.

BACKGROUND: Operative mortality risk models for adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) undergoing cardiac operations are essential, given the growing population of these patients, yet they are currently unavailable. Existing adult Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models exclude congenital procedures, whereas existing congenital models exclude operations for acquired disease. We aimed to develop an STS mortality risk model for ACHD patients undergoing cardiac operations. METHODS: Leveraging a comprehensive list of diagnostic and procedure codes, ACHD patients who underwent cardiac operations were identified from the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (versions: v2.73, v2.81, and v2.9) between 2011 and 2019. The model was developed and validated in the ACHD population using a 60/40 development/validation split. Univariate analyses and clinical expertise informed the addition of ACHD-relevant procedure and diagnosis variables to existing STS adult risk model variables. Model performance was assessed overall and in 38 subgroups based on patient demographics, procedures, and diagnoses. RESULTS: Forty-seven procedure and diagnosis variables relevant to ACHD were added to existing STS adult risk model variables. The derived ACHD model for operative mortality was well calibrated within demographic, procedural, and diagnosis subgroups and the overall ACHD population, and discrimination in the validation cohort was excellent (C statistic, 0.815) compared with the model using only existing STS adult risk model variables (C statistic, 0.79; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A novel, high-performing STS ACHD mortality risk model has been developed on the basis of contemporary patient data. The ACHD risk model represents an important expansion of the STS portfolio. Implementation with an online risk calculator is planned.

Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

BACKGROUND: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively). OBJECTIVES: This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death. METHODS: Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified. RESULTS: A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

Initial Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Medical Therapy for Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection.

Importance: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly been used for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) despite limited supporting data. Objective: To assess whether initial TEVAR following uTBAD is associated with reduced mortality or morbidity compared with medical therapy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims data for adults aged 65 years or older with index admissions for acute uTBAD from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018, with follow-up available through December 31, 2019. Exposures: Initial TEVAR was defined as TEVAR within 30 days of admission for acute uTBAD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, aorta-related and repeated aorta-related hospitalizations, and aortic interventions associated with initial TEVAR vs medical therapy. Propensity score inverse probability weighting was used. Results: Of 7105 patients with eligible index admissions for acute uTBAD, 1140 (16.0%) underwent initial TEVAR (623 [54.6%] female; median age, 74 years [IQR, 68-80 years]) and 5965 (84.0%) did not undergo TEVAR (3344 [56.1%] female; median age, 76 years [IQR, 69-83 years]). Receipt of TEVAR was associated with region (vs South; Midwest: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81]; P < .001; Northeast: aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]; P < .001), Medicaid dual eligibility (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91; P = .003), hypertension (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03), peripheral vascular disease (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .03), and year of admission (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were associated with greater odds of TEVAR compared with 2011). After inverse probability weighting, mortality was similar for the 2 strategies up to 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06), as were aorta-related hospitalizations (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99-1.27), aortic interventions (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20). In a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality over a period of 1 year (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03), 2 years (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .008), and 5 years (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 16.0% of patients underwent initial TEVAR within 30 days of uTBAD, and receipt of initial TEVAR was associated with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, region, Medicaid dual eligibility, and year of admission. Initial TEVAR was not associated with improved mortality or reduced hospitalizations or aortic interventions over a period of 5 years, but in a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality. These findings, along with cost-effectiveness and quality of life, should be assessed in a prospective trial in the US population.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Ischemia With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) is common clinically, particularly among women, but its prevalence among patients with at least moderate ischemia and the relationship between ischemia severity and non-obstructive atherosclerosis severity are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated predictors of INOCA in enrolled, nonrandomized participants in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), sex differences, and the relationship between ischemia and atherosclerosis in patients with INOCA. METHODS: Core laboratories independently reviewed screening noninvasive stress test results (nuclear imaging, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance testing), and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), blinded to results of the screening test. INOCA was defined as all stenoses <50% on CCTA in a patient with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. INOCA patients, who were excluded from randomization, were compared with randomized participants with ≥50% stenosis in ≥1 vessel and moderate or severe ischemia. RESULTS: Among 3,612 participants with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia and interpretable CCTA, 476 (13%) had INOCA. Patients with INOCA were younger, were predominantly female, and had fewer atherosclerosis risk factors. For each stress testing modality, the extent of ischemia tended to be less among patients with INOCA, particularly with nuclear imaging. There was no significant relationship between severity of ischemia and extent or severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis on CCTA. On multivariable analysis, female sex was independently associated with INOCA (odds ratio: 4.2 [95% CI: 3.4-5.2]). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants enrolled in ISCHEMIA with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia, the prevalence of INOCA was 13%. Severity of ischemia was not associated with severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Methylprednisolone for Heart Surgery in Infants - A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although perioperative prophylactic glucocorticoids have been used for decades, whether they improve outcomes in infants after heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, registry-based trial involving infants (<1 year of age) undergoing heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at 24 sites participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. Registry data were used in the evaluation of outcomes. The infants were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic methylprednisolone (30 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo, which was administered into the cardiopulmonary-bypass pump-priming fluid. The primary end point was a ranked composite of death, heart transplantation, or any of 13 major complications. Patients without any of these events were assigned a ranked outcome based on postoperative length of stay. In the primary analysis, the ranked outcomes were compared between the trial groups with the use of odds ratios adjusted for prespecified risk factors. Secondary analyses included an unadjusted odds ratio, a win ratio, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1263 infants underwent randomization, of whom 1200 received either methylprednisolone (599 infants) or placebo (601 infants). The likelihood of a worse outcome did not differ significantly between the methylprednisolone group and the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.05; P = 0.14). Secondary analyses (unadjusted for risk factors) showed an odds ratio for a worse outcome of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.00) and a win ratio of 1.15 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32) in the methylprednisolone group as compared with the placebo group, findings suggestive of a benefit with methylprednisolone; however, patients in the methylprednisolone group were more likely than those in the placebo group to receive postoperative insulin for hyperglycemia (19.0% vs. 6.7%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among infants undergoing surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, prophylactic use of methylprednisolone did not significantly reduce the likelihood of a worse outcome in an adjusted analysis and was associated with postoperative development of hyperglycemia warranting insulin in a higher percentage of infants than placebo. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; STRESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03229538.).