Development of a Novel Society of Thoracic Surgeons Aortic Surgery Mortality and Morbidity Risk Model.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (STS-ACSD) was expanded in 2017 to include more granular detail on thoracic aortic surgeries. We describe the first validated risk model in thoracic aortic surgery from the STS-ACSD. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients undergoing non-emergent isolated ascending aortic aneurysm repair using open or clamped distal anastomoses, including those requiring aortic root or valve replacement. Model outcomes included operative mortality, 30-day major morbidity (cardiac reoperation, deep sternal wound infection, stroke, prolonged ventilation, renal failure) and a composite of both. To select the predictors, univariate associations and clinical face validity of models were examined. Models were evaluated by their ability to distinguish between patients with and without specific outcomes (discrimination) and their predictive accuracy (calibration). RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2021, 24,051 eligible patients underwent ascending aortic aneurysm surgery at 905 hospitals. Procedures included 8,913 aortic root replacements, 2,135 valve-sparing root replacements, 7,545 ascending aortic replacements with AVR, and 5,458 ascending aortic replacements. Circulatory arrest was performed in 7,316 (30.4%) of cases. Operative mortality was 1.9%, and 12.2% of patients experienced major morbidity including 2.4% incidence of stroke. The adjusted C-statistics for the model were 0.74, 0.67 and 0.67 for mortality, morbidity and the composite, respectively. Previous stroke and circulatory arrest were associated with new stroke. Genetic aortopathy was associated with less mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A new STS-ACSD risk model to predict mortality and morbidity after ascending aneurysm surgery has been developed, and predictors of better and worse outcomes have been identified.

Atherosclerosis quantification and cardiovascular risk: the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived atherosclerotic plaque analysis in ISCHEMIA. METHODS: Atherosclerosis imaging quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT) was performed on all available baseline CCTAs to quantify plaque volume, composition, and distribution. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the association between baseline risk factors (age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, ejection fraction, prior coronary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and statin use), number of diseased vessels, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics determined by AI-QCT, and a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction over a median follow-up of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-4.4) years. The predictive value of plaque quantification over risk factors was compared in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Analysable CCTA data were available from 3711 participants (mean age 64 years, 21% female, 79% multivessel coronary artery disease). Amongst the AI-QCT variables, total plaque volume was most strongly associated with the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.97 per interquartile range increase [559 mm3]; P = .001). The addition of AI-QCT plaque quantification and characterization to baseline risk factors improved the model's predictive value for the primary outcome at 6 months (AUC 0.688 vs. 0.637; P = .006), at 2 years (AUC 0.660 vs. 0.617; P = .003), and at 4 years of follow-up (AUC 0.654 vs. 0.608; P = .002). The findings were similar for the other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, total plaque volume was associated with cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. In this highly diseased, high-risk population, enhanced assessment of atherosclerotic burden using AI-QCT-derived measures of plaque volume and composition modestly improved event prediction.

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.

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.

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).