Predicting Major Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry (LAAO) includes the vast majority of transcatheter LAAO procedures performed in the United States. The objective of this study was to develop a model predicting adverse events among patients undergoing LAAO with Watchman FLX. METHODS: Data from 41 001 LAAO procedures with Watchman FLX from July 2020 to September 2021 were used to develop and validate a model predicting in-hospital major adverse events. Randomly selected development (70%, n=28 530) and validation (30%, n=12 471) cohorts were analyzed with 1000 bootstrapped samples, using forward stepwise logistic regression to create the final model. A simplified bedside risk score was also developed using this model. RESULTS: Increased age, female sex, low preprocedure hemoglobin, no prior attempt at atrial fibrillation termination, and increased fall risk most strongly predicted in-hospital major adverse events and were included in the final model along with other clinically relevant variables. The median in-hospital risk-standardized adverse event rate was 1.50% (range, 1.03%-2.84%; interquartile range, 1.42%-1.64%). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (development C-index, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.65-0.70] and validation C-index, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62-0.70]) with good calibration. The simplified risk score was well calibrated with risk of in-hospital major adverse events ranging from 0.26% to 3.90% for a score of 0 to 8, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A transcatheter LAAO risk model using National Cardiovascular Data Registry and LAAO Registry data can predict in-hospital major adverse events, demonstrated consistency across hospitals and can be used for quality improvement efforts. A simple bedside risk score was similarly predictive and may inform shared decision-making.

Development and validation of an automated algorithm for end point adjudication for a large U.S. national registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical events committee (CEC) evaluation is the standard approach for end point adjudication in clinical trials. Due to resource constraints, large registries typically rely on site-reported end points without further confirmation, which may preclude use for regulatory oversight. METHODS: We developed a novel automated adjudication algorithm (AAA) for end point adjudication in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry using an iterative process using CEC adjudication as the "gold standard." A ≥80% agreement rate between automated algorithm adjudication and CEC adjudication was prespecified as clinically acceptable. Agreement rates were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 92 in-hospital and 127 post-discharge end points were evaluated between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019 using AAA and CEC. Agreement for neurologic events was >90%. Percent agreement for in-hospital and post-discharge events was as follows: ischemic stroke 95.7% and 94.5%, hemorrhagic stroke 97.8% and 96.1%, undetermined stroke 97.8% and 99.2%, transient ischemic attack 98.9% and 98.4% and intracranial hemorrhage 100.0% and 94.5%. Agreement was >80% for major bleeding (83.7% and 90.6%) and major vascular complication (89.1% and 97.6%). With this approach, <1% of site reported end points require CEC adjudication. Agreement remained very good during the period after algorithm derivation. CONCLUSIONS: An AAA-guided approach for end point adjudication was successfully developed and validated for the LAAO Registry. With this approach, the need for formal CEC adjudication was substantially reduced, with accuracy maintained above an 80% agreement threshold. After application specific validation, these methods could be applied to large registries and clinical trials to reduce the cost of event adjudication while preserving scientific validity.

Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report 1-year clinical outcomes following commercial transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in the United States. BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was initiated to meet a condition of Medicare coverage and allow the assessment of clinical outcomes. The 1-year rates of thromboembolic events after transcatheter LAAO in such a large cohort of "real-world" patients have not been previously reported. METHODS: Patients entered into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry for a Watchman procedure between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, were included. The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke. Key secondary endpoints included the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, mortality, and major bleeding. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization, and/or causing a decrease in hemoglobin level > 2g/dL, and/or requiring blood transfusion that was not hemorrhagic stroke. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for 1-year estimates of cumulative event rates. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 36,681 patients. The mean age was 76.0 ± 8.1 years, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.8 ± 1.5, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.0 ± 1.1. Prior stroke was present in 25.5%, clinically relevant bleeding in 69.5%, and intracranial bleeding in 11.9%. Median follow-up was 374 days (IQR: 212-425 days). The Kaplan-Meier-estimated 1-year rate of ischemic stroke was 1.53% (95% CI: 1.39%-1.69%), the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was 2.19% (95% CI: 2.01%-2.38%), and the rate of mortality was 8.52% (95% CI: 8.19%-8.87%). The 1-year estimated rate of major bleeding was 6.93% (95% CI: 6.65%-7.21%). Most bleeding events occurred between discharge and 45 days following the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes important outcomes in a national cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter LAAO in the United States. Clinicians and patients can integrate these data in shared decision making when considering this therapy.

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Data Quality Program 2020: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry is a group of registries maintained by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. These registries are used by a diverse constituency to improve the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, to assess the safety and effectiveness of new therapies, and for research. To achieve these goals, registry data must be complete and reliable. In this article, we review the process of National Cardiovascular Data Registry data collection, assess data completeness and integrity, and report on the current state of the data. Registry data are complete. Accuracy is very good but variable, and there is room for improvement. Knowledge of the quality of data is essential to ensuring its appropriate use.

Cardiovascular care facts: a report from the national cardiovascular data registry: 2011.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report was to characterize the patients, participating centers, and measures of quality of care and outcomes for 5 NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) programs: 1) ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-GWTG (Get With The Guidelines) for acute coronary syndromes; 2) CathPCI Registry for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention; 3) CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) Registry for carotid revascularization; 4) ICD Registry for implantable cardioverter defibrillators; and the 5) PINNACLE (Practice INNovation And CLinical Excellence) Registry for outpatients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND: CVD is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. The quality of care for patients with CVD is suboptimal. National registry programs, such as NCDR, permit assessments of the quality of care and outcomes for broad populations of patients with CVD. METHODS: For the year 2011, we assessed for each of the 5 NCDR programs: 1) demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients; 2) key characteristics of participating centers; 3) measures of processes of care; and 4) patient outcomes. For selected variables, we assessed trends over time. RESULTS: In 2011 ACTION Registry-GWTG enrolled 119,967 patients in 567 hospitals; CathPCI enrolled 632,557 patients in 1,337 hospitals; CARE enrolled 4,934 patients in 130 hospitals; ICD enrolled 139,991 patients in 1,435 hospitals; and PINNACLE enrolled 249,198 patients (1,436,328 individual encounters) in 74 practices (1,222 individual providers). Data on performance metrics and outcomes, in some cases risk-adjusted with validated NCDR models, are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR provides a unique opportunity to understand the characteristics of large populations of patients with CVD, the centers that provide their care, quality of care provided, and important patient outcomes.