Seattle Proportional Risk Model in GISSI-HF: Estimated Benefit of ICD in Patients with EF less than 50%: Estimated Benefit of ICD in EF <50.

BACKGROUND: The Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) estimates the proportion of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure (HF) patients, identifying those most likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy (those with ≥50% estimated proportion of SCD). The GISSI-HF trial tested fish oil and rosuvastatin in HF patients. We used the SPRM to evaluate its accuracy in this cohort in predicting potential ICD benefit in patients with EF ≤50% and an SPRM-predicted proportion of SCD either ≥50% or <50%. METHODS: The SPRM was estimated in patients with EF ≤50% and in a logistic regression model comparing SCD with non-SCD. RESULTS: We evaluated 6,750 patients with EF ≤50%. There were 1,892 all-cause deaths, including 610 SCDs. Fifty percent of EF ≤35% patients and 43% with EF 36% to 50% had an SPRM of ≥50%. The SPRM (OR: 1.92, P < 0.0001) accurately predicted the risk of SCD vs non-SCD with an estimated proportion of SCD of 44% vs the observed proportion of 41% at 1 year. By traditional criteria for ICD implantation (EF ≤35%, NYHA class II or III), 64.5% of GISSI-HF patients would be eligible, with an estimated ICD benefit of 0.81. By SPRM >50%, 47.8% may be eligible, including 30.2% with EF >35%. GISSI-HF participants with EF ≤35% with SPRM ≥50% had an estimated ICD HR of 0.64, comparable to patients with EF 36% to 50% with SPRM ≥50% (HR: 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The SPRM discriminated SCD vs non-SCD in GISSI-HF, both in patients with EF ≤35% and with EF 36% to 50%. The comparable estimated ICD benefit in patients with EF ≤35% and EF 36% to 50% supports the use of a proportional risk model for shared decision making with patients being considered for primary prevention ICD therapy.

Prognostic Impact of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Separating Rhythm Outcomes From Randomized Strategy Findings From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinically detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a significant increase in mortality and other adverse cardiovascular events. Since the advent of effective methods for AF rhythm control, investigators have attempted to determine how much these adverse prognostic AF effects could be mitigated by the restoration of sinus rhythm (SR) and whether the method used mattered. METHODS: The CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2204 AF patients to ablation versus drug therapy, of which 1240 patients were monitored in follow-up using the CABANA ECG rhythm monitoring system. To assess the prognostic benefits of SR, we performed a prespecified analysis using Cox survival modeling with heart rhythm as a time-dependent variable and randomized treatment group as a stratification factor. RESULTS: In the 1240 patient study cohort, 883 (71.2%) had documented AF at some point during their postblanking follow-up. Among the 883 patients, 671 (76.0%) experienced AF within the first year of postblanking follow-up, and 212 (24.0%) experienced their first AF after ≥1 year of postblanking follow-up. The primary CABANA end point (death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest) occurred in 95 (10.8%) of the 883 patients with documented AF and in 29 (8.1%) of the 357 patients with no AF recorded during follow-up. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, the presence of SR (compared with non-SR) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.38-0.85]; P=0.006; independent of treatment strategy [ablation versus drugs]). Corresponding results for all-cause mortality were adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-1.01]; P=0.053). CONCLUSIONS: In patients in the CABANA trial with detailed long-term rhythm follow-up, increased time in SR was associated with a clinically consequential decrease in mortality and other adverse prognostic events. The predictive value of SR was independent of the therapeutic approach responsible for reducing the burden of detectable AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00911508.

Regional differences in outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: Results from the CABANA trial.

BACKGROUND: The finding of unexpected variations in treatment benefits by geographic region in international clinical trials raises complex questions about the interpretation and generalizability of trial findings. We observed such geographical variations in outcome and in the effectiveness of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation versus drug therapy in the Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial. This paper describes these differences and investigates potential causes. METHODS: The examination of treatment effects by geographic region was a prespecified analysis. CABANA enrolled patients from 10 countries, with 1,285 patients at 85 North American (NA) sites and 919 at 41 non-NA sites. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Death and first atrial fibrillation recurrence were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: At least 1 primary endpoint event occurred in 157 patients (12.2%) from NA and 33 (3.6%) from non-NA sites over a median 54.9 and 40.5 months of follow-up, respectively (NA/non-NA adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-3.21, P < .001). In NA patients, 78 events occurred in the ablation and 79 in the drug arm, (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66, 1.24) while 11 and 22 events occurred in non-NA patients (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25,1.05, interaction P = .154). Death occurred in 53 ablation and 51 drug therapy patients in the NA group (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65,1.42) and in 5 ablation and 16 drug therapy patients in the non-NA group (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12,0.86, interaction P = .044). Adjusting for baseline regional differences or prognostic risk variables did not account for the regional differences in treatment effects. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was reduced by ablation in both regions (NA: HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.63; non-NA: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64, interaction P = .322). CONCLUSIONS: In CABANA, primary outcome events occurred significantly more often in the NA group but assignment to ablation significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the non-NA group only. These differences were not explained by regional variations in procedure effectiveness, safety, or patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0091150; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00911508.

Voltage gradients in transvenous and subcutaneous defibrillation and their risk of myocardial damage.

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks have been associated with cardiac biomarker elevations and are thought in some cases to contribute to adverse clinical outcomes and mortality, possibly from myocardium exposed to excessive shock voltage gradients. Currently, there are only limited data for comparison with subcutaneous ICDs. We sought to compare ventricular myocardium voltage gradients resulting from transvenous (TV) and subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) shocks to assess their risk of myocardial damage. METHODS: A finite element model was derived from thoracic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Voltage gradients were modeled for an S-ICD with a left-sided parasternal coil and a left-sided TV-ICD with a mid-cavity, a septal right ventricle (RV) coil, or a dual coil lead (TV mid, TV septal, TV septal + superior vena cava [SVC]). High gradients were defined as > 100 V/cm. RESULTS: The volumes of ventricular myocardium with high gradients > 100 V/cm were 0.02, 2.4, 7.7, and 0 cc for TV mid, TV septal, TV septal + SVC, and S-ICD, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our models suggest that S-ICD shocks produce more uniform gradients in the myocardium, with less exposure to potentially damaging electrical fields, compared to TV-ICDs. Dual coil TV leads yield higher gradients, as does closer proximity of the shock coil to the myocardium.

Defibrillation effectiveness and safety of the shock waveform used in a contemporary wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Results from animal and human studies.

INTRODUCTION: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is used to protect patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest. We examined defibrillation efficacy and safety of a biphasic truncated exponential waveform designed for use in a contemporary WCD in three animal studies and a human study. METHODS: Animal (swine) studies: #1: Efficacy comparison of a 170J BTE waveform (SHOCK A) to a 150J BTE waveform (SHOCK B) that approximates another commercially available waveform. Primary endpoint first shock success rate. #2: Efficacy comparison of the two waveforms at attenuated charge voltages in swine at three prespecified impedances. Primary endpoint first shock success rate. #3: Safety comparison of SHOCK A and SHOCK B in swine. Primary endpoint cardiac biomarker level changes baseline to 6 and 24 hours post-shock. Human Study: Efficacy comparison of SHOCK A to prespecified goal and safety evaluation. Primary endpoint cumulative first and second shock success rate. Safety endpoint adverse events. RESULTS: Animal Studies #1: 120 VF episodes in six swine. First shock success rates for SHOCK A and SHOCK B were 100%; SHOCK A non-inferior to SHOCK B (entire 95% CI of rate difference above -10% margin, p < .001). #2: 2,160 VF episodes in thirty-six swine. Attenuated SHOCK A was non-inferior to attenuated SHOCK B at each impedance (entire 95% CI of rate difference above -10% margin, p < .001). #3: Ten swine, five shocked five times each with SHOCK A, five shocked five times each with SHOCK B. No significant difference in troponin I (p = 0.658) or creatine phosphokinase (p = 0.855) changes from baseline between SHOCK A and SHOCK B. Human Study: Thirteen patients, 100% VF conversion rate. Mild skin irritation from adhesive defibrillation pads in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: The BTE waveform effectively and safely terminated induced VF in swine and a small sample in humans. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Human study clinical trial registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04132466.

Effects of Ablation Versus Drug Therapy on Quality of Life by Sex in Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the CABANA Trial.

Background Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate more AF-related symptoms and worse quality of life (QOL). Whether increased use of ablation in women reduces sex-related QOL differences is unknown. Sex-related outcomes for ablation versus drug therapy was a prespecified analysis in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Methods and Results Symptoms were assessed periodically over 60 months with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score, and QOL was assessed with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary and component scores. Women had lower baseline QOL scores than men (mean AFEQT scores 55.9 and 65.6, respectively). Ablation patients improved more than drug therapy patients with similar treatment effect by sex: AFEQT 12-month mean adjusted treatment difference in women 6.1 points (95% CI, 3.5-8.6) and men 4.9 points (95% CI, 3.0-6.9). Participants with baseline AFEQT summary scores <70 had greater QOL improvement, with a mean treatment difference at 12 months of 7.6 points for women (95% CI, 4.3-10.9) and 6.4 points for men (95% CI, 3.3-9.4). The mean adjusted difference in MAFSI frequency score between women randomized to ablation versus drug therapy at 12 months was -2.5 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.6); for men, the difference was -1.3 (95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6). Conclusions Compared with drug therapy for AF, ablation resulted in more QOL improvement in both sexes, primarily driven by improvements in those with lower baseline QOL. Ablation did not eliminate the AF-related QOL gap between women and men. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

A Commentary on the Effect of Targeted Temperature Management in Patients Resuscitated from Cardiac Arrest.

The members of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advanced Life Support Task Force have written a comprehensive summary of trials of the effectiveness of induced hypothermia (IH) or targeted temperature management (TTM) in comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA). However, in-depth analysis of these studies is incomplete, especially since there was no significant difference in primary outcome between hypothermia versus normothermia in the recently reported TTM2 trial. We critically appraise trials of IH/TTM versus normothermia to characterize reasons for the lack of treatment effect, based on a previously published framework for what to consider when the primary outcome fails. We found a strong biologic rationale and external clinical evidence that IH treatment is beneficial. Recent TTM trials mainly included unselected patients with a high rate of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The treatment was not applied as intended, which led to a large delay in achievement of target temperature. While receiving intensive care, sedative drugs were likely used that might have led to increased neurologic damage as were antiplatelet drugs that could be associated with increased acute stent thrombosis in hypothermic patients. It is reasonable to still use or evaluate IH treatment in patients who are comatose after CA as there are multiple plausible reasons why IH compared to normothermia did not significantly improve neurologic outcome in the TTM trials.

Risk factors for hematoma in patients undergoing cardiac device procedures: A WRAP-IT trial analysis.

Background: Implant site hematoma is a known complication of cardiac device procedures and can lead to major consequences. Objectives: To evaluate risk factors for hematoma and further understand the relationship between anticoagulant (AC), antiplatelet (AP) use, and hematoma development. Methods: We included 6800 patients from the WRAP-IT trial. To assess baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma within the first 30 days postprocedure, a stepwise Cox regression model was implemented with minimal Akaike information criterion. Cox regressions were also used to evaluate AC/AP use and hematoma risk. Results: The overall rate of hematoma was 2.2%. The model identified 11 baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma risk. AC use (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44, P < .001), lower body mass index (HR: 1.06, P < .001), and history of valve surgery (HR: 2.11, P < .001) were associated with the highest risk. AP use, male sex, history of coronary artery disease, existing pocket, history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy, number of previous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures, procedure time, and lead revision were associated with moderate risk. Antithrombotic use was high overall (86%) and AC+AP use was highly predictive of hematoma risk. Regardless of AC status, AP use was associated with an almost doubling of risk vs no AP (HR = 1.85, P = .0006) in the general cohort. Interruption of AC was associated with the lowest hematoma risk (HR = 2.35) while heparin bridging (HR = 4.98) and AP use vs no AP use (HR = 1.85) was associated with the highest hematoma risk. Conclusion: The results of this analysis highlight risk factors associated with the development of hematoma in patients undergoing CIED procedures and can inform antithrombotic management.

Temporal trends and long-term outcomes among recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator in the United States, 2011-2015: Insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Background: Contemporary data on national trends and outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients following the 2012 updated guidelines has not been studied. Objectives: This study assessed the trends in long-term outcomes among CRT-D Medicare-aged recipients implanted in 2011-2015. Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years undergoing de novo CRT-D implantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Registry from 2011-2015 with follow-up through 2017 using Medicare data were included and stratified by year of implant. Patient characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and outcomes up to 2 years following implant were evaluated. Results: Among 53,174 patients (aged 75.6-6.4 years, 29.7% women) implanted with CRT-D from 2011 to 2015, there was an increase in implantations based on guideline-concordant recommendations (81.0% to 84.7%, P < .001). Compared to 2011, in-hospital procedural complications decreased in 2015 (3.9% vs 2.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.88, P < .001), driven in part by decreased lead dislodgement (1.4% vs 1.0%). After multivariable adjustment, there was a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, cardiovascular hospitalization, and mortality at 2-year follow-up in 2015 as compared to 2011, while there were no differences in heart failure hospitalizations at follow-up. Conclusion: Among Medicare beneficiaries receiving CRT-D from 2011 to 2015, there was an increase in implantations based on guideline-concordant recommendations. Furthermore, there has been a reduction in in-hospital complications and long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality; however, there has been no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization after adjustment.

Predictors of high-degree atrioventricular block in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The development of new left bundle branch block (LBBB) is frequently seen post TAVR and is a known risk factor for progression to high degree AV block. The timing and likelihood of progression into complete heart block is variable and can develop after hospital discharge. We sought to determine predictors for the development of high degree AV block in patients who developed LBBB following TAVR. METHODS: All patients between 2014 and 2019 underwent electrophysiology study after developing LBBB post TAVR. Data on these patients including baseline characteristics, echo parameters, EKG variables, HV interval, and the need for subsequent pacemaker implantation were extracted. A prolonged HV interval was defined as ≥ 65 ms. Clinically significant conduction abnormality was defined as development of high-degree AV block or clinically significant complete heart block. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were included in our study of which 10 (29.4%) developed clinically significant heart block, while 24 (70.6%) did not. The mean HV interval for patients with clinically significant heart block was 70.1 ms vs 57.8 ms for those who did not (p = 0.022). Pre-existing first-degree heart block prior to TAVR (p = 0.026), history of AFib (p = 0.05) in addition to STS score (p = 0.037) were predictors of development of high-degree AV block in our patient population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who develop LBBB following TAVR, HV interval, pre-existing first-degree heart block, and STS score predict progression to high-degree AV block. Performance of a routine electrophysiology study should be considered for high-risk patients who develop LBBB following TAVR.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Influence of atrial fibrillation type on outcomes of ablation vs. drug therapy: results from CABANA.

AIMS: Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). METHODS AND RESULTS: CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSION: Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00911508.

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator with a low false alarm rate.

INTRODUCTION: A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated in appropriate patients to reduce the risk for sudden cardiac death. Challenges for patients wearing a WCD have been frequent false shock alarms primarily due to electrocardiogram noise and wear discomfort. The objective of this study was to test a contemporary WCD designed for reduced false shock alarms and improved comfort. METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and an active implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were fitted with the ASSURE WCD (Kestra Medical Technologies) and followed for 30 days. WCD detection was enabled and shock alarm markers recorded, but shocks and shock alarms were disabled. All WCD episodes and ICD ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes were adjudicated. The primary endpoint was the false-positive shock alarm rate with a performance goal of 1 every 3.4 days (0.29 per patient-day). RESULTS: Of 163 WCD episodes, 4 were VT/VF and 159 non-VT/VF (121 rhythms with noise, 32 uncertain with noise, 6 atrial flutter without noise). Only three false-positive shock alarm markers were recorded; one false-positive shock alarm every 1333 patient-days (0.00075 per patient-day, 95% confidence interval: 0.00015-0.00361; p < .001). No ICD recorded VT/VF episodes meeting WCD detection criteria (≥170 bpm for ≥20 s) were missed by the WCD during 3501 patient-days of use. Median wear was 31.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0) and median daily use 23.0 h (IQR 1.7). Adverse events were mostly mild: skin irritation (19.4%) and musculoskeletal discomfort (8.5%). CONCLUSION: The ASSURE WCD demonstrated a low false-positive shock alarm rate, low patient-reported discomfort, and no serious adverse events.