Cost-Effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in German Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients at Low Surgical Mortality Risk.

INTRODUCTION: In the randomized PARTNER 3 trial, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device significantly reduced a composite of all-cause death, stroke, and rehospitalization, compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low risk of surgical mortality. Furthermore, TAVI has been shown to be cost-effective in low-risk patients, compared with SAVR, in a number of countries. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in Germany. METHODS: A previously published two-stage Markov-based model that captured clinical outcomes from the PARTNER 3 trial was adapted for the German context using the German Statutory Health Insurance perspective. The model had a lifetime horizon. The cost-utility analysis estimated changes in direct healthcare costs as well as survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. RESULTS: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by + 0.72 at an increased cost of €8664 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness/QALY ratio was €12,037, which fell below that of other cardiovascular interventions in use in Germany. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust across multiple challenging scenarios and was driven by lower longer-term management costs compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears to be a clinically meaningful, cost-effective treatment option over SAVR for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low risk for surgical mortality in Germany. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02675114.

Radiofrequency ablation vs antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (RAAFT-2): a randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disorder seen in clinical practice. Antiarrhythmic drugs are effective for reduction of recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF. Radiofrequency ablation is an accepted therapy in patients for whom antiarrhythmic drugs have failed; however, its role as a first-line therapy needs further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiofrequency ablation with antiarrhythmic drugs (standard therapy) in treating patients with paroxysmal AF as a first-line therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized clinical trial involving 127 treatment-naive patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized at 16 centers in Europe and North America to received either antiarrhythmic therapy or ablation. The first patient was enrolled July 27, 2006; the last patient, January 29, 2010. The last follow-up was February 16, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Sixty-one patients in the antiarrhythmic drug group and 66 in the radiofrequency ablation group were followed up for 24 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The time to the first documented atrial tachyarrhythmia of more than 30 seconds (symptomatic or asymptomatic AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia), detected by either scheduled or unscheduled electrocardiogram, Holter, transtelephonic monitor, or rhythm strip, was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic recurrences of atrial tachyarrhythmias and quality of life measures assessed by the EQ-5D tool. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (72.1%) in the antiarrhythmic group and in 36 patients (54.5%) in the ablation group experienced the primary efficacy outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.35-0.90]; P = .02). For the secondary outcomes, 59% in the drug group and 47% in the ablation group experienced the first recurrence of symptomatic AF, atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33-0.95]; P = .03). No deaths or strokes were reported in either group; 4 cases of cardiac tamponade were reported in the ablation group. In the standard treatment group, 26 patients (43%) underwent ablation after 1-year. Quality of life was moderately impaired at baseline in both groups and improved at the 1 year follow-up. However, improvement was not significantly different among groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with paroxysmal AF without previous antiarrhythmic drug treatment, radiofrequency ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs resulted in a lower rate of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias at 2 years. However, recurrence was frequent in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00392054.

Clinical performance of the St. Jude Medical Riata defibrillation lead in a large patient population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this large multicenter study was to evaluate the long-term reliability of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead to determine the incidence of adverse events (AEs). BACKGROUND: A recent concern has been the performance of cardiac defibrillator leads. There have been conflicting reports regarding the rate of lead perforation and other AEs. METHODS: Medical records from patients implanted from 6-1-2001 to 11-27-2007 with the St. Jude Medical Riata family of RV leads at 23 US (N = 12,969) and 5 German (N = 2,418) centers were reviewed for chronic lead-related AEs. These included perforation, dislodgment, conductor fracture and insulation damage. The mean follow-up period was 18.0 months. AEs were defined as those that required Riata lead revision, extraction, or replacement. RESULTS: The incidence of lead AEs was <1% for each AE type. Perforation occurred in 0.38%, dislodgement in 0.93%, conductor fracture in 0.18%, and insulation damage in 0.21% of patients studied. CONCLUSIONS: During the follow-up of the 15,387 patients with Riata leads, the incidence of AEs which included perforation, dislodgement, conductor fraction and insulation damage was low and within the range of what is considered clinically acceptable.