Online support groups for women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer continue to improve. However, some women may experience physical, psychological and emotional effects post diagnosis, throughout treatment and beyond. Support groups can provide opportunities for people to share their experiences and learn from others. As the number of online support groups increases, more and more women with breast cancer will likely access them. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of online support groups on the emotional distress, uncertainty, anxiety, depression and quality of life (QoL) of women with breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 2 May 2016, and we handsearched journals and reference lists. We also searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and clinicaltrials.gov on 2 May 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effects of online support groups on women with a diagnosis of breast cancer and women who have completed breast cancer treatment. We included studies comparing online support groups with a usual care group, and studies comparing two or more types of online support groups (without a usual care group). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We presented outcome data using mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and we used the fixed-effect model when appropriate. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies (492 women) that assessed online support groups for women with breast cancer. Online support groups in these six trials lasted from six to 30 weeks. Women participated in these groups between 1.5 and 2.5 hours per week, and investigators conducted all studies in the USA. Participants were predominantly white and well educated and were moderate to high earners. Four studies compared an online support group versus a control group, and the other two compared a 'moderated' versus a 'peer-led' online support group, and a 'standard' versus an 'enhanced' online support group, respectively.None of the included studies measured 'emotional distress' or uncertainty. One study (78 women) for which data for analysis were missing reported no positive effects of online support on 'distress' and 'cancer-specific distress' versus support provided by a control group. Two studies measured anxiety: One study (72 women) found no difference in anxiety at the end of the intervention between the online support group and the control group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -6.42 to 5.62; low-quality evidence), and the second study (184 women) reported a reduction in anxiety levels at the end of the intervention when comparing the 'standard' support group (run by participants without prompting from health professionals) versus an 'enhanced' online support group (in which participants were specifically asked by the researcher to respond to one another's need for support).Five studies (414 women) measured depression. Three studies compared depression in the online support group with depression in the control group. Pooled data from two studies (120 women) showed a small to moderate reduction in depression in the online support group compared with control groups at the end of the intervention (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.00; very low-quality evidence). The third study, a pilot study (30 women), provided no data for analysis but reported no difference in depression between participants in support and control groups at the end of the intervention. Of the remaining two studies that measured depression, one study (60 women) provided no extractable data for comparison but reported no difference in depressive symptoms between a 'moderated' and a 'peer-led' support group; the other study (184 women) reported greater reduction in depression in the 'standard' support group than in the 'enhanced' online support group.Three studies measured quality of life. One pilot study (30 women) provided limited data for analysis but reported no change in quality of life at the end of the intervention. Only two studies (140 women) provided data for pooling and showed no positive effects on quality of life at four months post intervention compared with controls (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.24; very low-quality evidence). At 12 months post intervention, one study (78 women) reported that the intervention group did not attain better quality of life scores than the control group (MD -10.89, 95% CI -20.41 to -1.37; low-quality evidence).We found no data for subgroup analyses on stage of disease, treatment modality and types and doses of interventions. No studies measured adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review did not find the evidence required to show whether participation in online support groups was beneficial for women with breast cancer, because identified trials were small and of low or very low quality. Large, rigorous trials with ethnically and economically diverse participants are needed to provide robust evidence regarding the psychosocial outcomes selected for this review.

Predictors of mortality and outcomes of therapy in low-flow severe aortic stenosis: a Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis and treatment of patients with low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis are controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial randomized patients with severe aortic stenosis to medical management versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR; inoperable cohort) and surgical aortic valve replacement versus TAVR (high-risk cohort). Among 971 patients with evaluable echocardiograms (92%), LF (stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2)) was observed in 530 (55%); LF and low ejection fraction (<50%) in 225 (23%); and LF, low ejection fraction, and low mean gradient (<40 mm Hg) in 147 (15%). Two-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with LF compared with those with normal stroke volume index (47% versus 34%; hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.89; P=0.006). In the inoperable cohort, patients with LF had higher mortality than those with normal flow, but both groups improved with TAVR (46% versus 76% with LF and 38% versus 53% with normal flow; P<0.001). In the high-risk cohort, there was no difference between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. In patients with paradoxical LF and low gradient (preserved ejection fraction), TAVR reduced 1-year mortality from 66% to 35% (hazard ratio, 0.38; P=0.02). LF was an independent predictor of mortality in all patient cohorts (hazard ratio, ≈1.5), whereas ejection fraction and gradient were not. CONCLUSIONS: LF is common in severe aortic stenosis and independently predicts mortality. Survival is improved with TAVR compared with medical management and similar with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. A measure of flow (stroke volume index) should be included in the evaluation and therapeutic decision making of patients with severe aortic stenosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov. Unique identifier: NCT0053089.4.

Impact of preoperative moderate/severe mitral regurgitation on 2-year outcome after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: insight from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial Cohort A.

BACKGROUND: The effect of preoperative mitral regurgitation (MR) on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is controversial. This study sought to examine the impact of moderate and severe MR on outcomes after TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were drawn from the randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial cohort A patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing either TAVR (n=331) or SAVR (n=299). Both TAVR and SAVR patients were dichotomized according to the degree of preoperative MR (moderate/severe versus none/mild). At baseline, moderate or severe MR was reported in 65 TAVR patients (19.6%) and 63 SAVR patients (21.2%). At 30 days, among survivors who had isolated SAVR/TAVR, moderate/severe MR had improved in 25 SAVR patients (69.4%) and 30 TAVR patients (57.7%), was unchanged in 10 SAVR patients (27.8%) and 19 TAVR patients (36.5%), and worsened in 1 SAVR patient (2.8%) and 4 TAVR patients (5.8%; all P=NS). Mortality at 2 years was higher in SAVR patients with moderate or severe MR than in those with mild or less MR (49.8% versus 28.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.96; P=0.04). In contrast, MR severity at baseline did not affect mortality in TAVR patients (37.0% versus 32.7%, moderate/severe versus none/mild; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.78; P=0.58; P for interaction=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with a significant early improvement in MR in survivors. However, moderate or severe MR at baseline was associated with increased 2-year mortality after SAVR but not after TAVR. TAVR may be a reasonable option in selected patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort--a analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort. METHODS: The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), moderate if the indexed EOA was ≥0.65 but ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2), or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2). LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts. RESULTS: The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).

Incidence and effect of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the new valve academic research consortium criteria.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with a poor prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A paucity of data exists regarding the incidence and effect of AKI after TAVR using the new recommended Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. At Columbia University Medical Center, 218 TAVR procedures (64.2% transfemoral, 35.8% transapical) were performed from 2008 to July 2011. The creatinine level was evaluated daily until discharge. Using the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions, the 30-day and 1-year outcomes were compared between patients with significant AKI (AKI stage 2 or 3) and those without significant AKI (AKI stage 0 or 1). Significant AKI occurred in 18 patients (8.3%). Of these 18 patients, 10 (55.6%) had AKI stage 3 and 9 (50%) required dialysis. AKI was associated with a lower baseline mean transvalvular gradient (37.6 ± 11.4 vs 45.6 ± 14.8 mm Hg for no AKI, p = 0.03). After TAVR, the AKI group had a greater hemoglobin decrease (3.6 ± 2.0 vs 2.4 ± 1.3 g/dl, p = 0.01), greater white blood cell elevation at 72 hours (21.09 ± 12.99 vs 13.18 ± 4.82 × 10(3)/µl, p = 0.001), a more severe platelet decrease (118 ± 40 vs 75 ± 43 × 10(3)/µl, p <0.0001), and longer hospitalization (10.7 ± 6.4 vs 7.7 ± 8.5 days, p <0.001). One stroke (5.6%) occurred in the AKI group compared with 3 (1.5%) in the group without AKI (p = 0.29). The 30-day and 1-year rates of death were significantly greater in the AKI group than in the no-AKI group (44.4% vs 3.0%, hazard ratio 18.1, 95% confidence interval 6.25 to 52.20, p <0.0001; and 55.6% vs 16.0%, hazard ratio 6.32, 95% confidence interval 3.06 to 13.10, p <0.0001, respectively). Periprocedural life-threatening bleeding was the strongest predictor of AKI after TAVR. In conclusion, the occurrence of AKI, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria, is associated with periprocedural complications and a poor prognosis after TAVR.

Implementation of echocardiography core laboratory best practices: a case study of the PARTNER I trial.

BACKGROUND: Multicenter clinical trials use echocardiographic core laboratories to ensure expertise and consistency in the assessment of imaging eligibility criteria, as well as safety and efficacy end points. The aim of this study was to report the real-world implementation of guidelines for best practices in echocardiographic core laboratories, including their feasibility and quality results, in a large, international multicenter trial. METHODS: Processes and procedures were developed to optimize the acquisition and analysis of echocardiograms for the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I trial of percutaneous aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Comparison of baseline findings in the operative and nonoperative cohorts and reproducibility analyses were performed. RESULTS: Echocardiography was performed in 1,055 patients (mean age, 83 years; 54% men) The average peak and mean aortic valve gradients were 73 ± 24 and 43 ± 15 mm Hg, and the average aortic valve area was 0.64 ± 0.20 cm(2). The average ejection fraction was 52 ± 13% by visual estimation and 53 ± 14% by biplane planimetry. The mean left ventricular mass index was 151 ± 42 g/m(2). The inoperable cohort had lower left ventricular mass and mass indexes and tended to have more severe mitral regurgitation. Core lab reproducibility was excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.92 to 0.99 and κ statistics from 0.58 to 0.85 for key variables. The image acquisition quality improvement process brought measurability to >85%, which was maintained for the duration of the study. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world echocardiographic core lab experience in the PARTNER I trial demonstrates that a high standard of measurability and reproducibility can result from extensive quality assurance efforts in both image acquisition and analysis. These results and the echocardiographic data reported here provide a reference for future studies of aortic stenosis patients and should encourage the wider use of echocardiography in clinical research.

Outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction: results from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial (cohort A).

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial demonstrated similar survival after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR, respectively) in high-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction on clinical outcomes after TAVR and SAVR and the impact of aortic valve replacement technique on LV function. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PARTNER trial randomized high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to TAVR or SAVR. Patients were stratified by the presence of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. All-cause mortality was similar for TAVR and SAVR at 30-days and 1 year regardless of baseline LV function and valve replacement technique. In patients with LV dysfunction, mean LVEF increased from 35.7±8.5% to 48.6±11.3% (P<0.0001) 1 year after TAVR and from 38.0±8.0% to 50.1±10.8% after SAVR (P<0.0001). Higher baseline LVEF (odds ratio, 0.90 [95% confidence interval, 0.86, 0.95]; P<0.0001) and previous permanent pacemaker (odds ratio, 0.34 [95% confidence interval, 0.15, 0.81]) were independently associated with reduced likelihood of ≥10% absolute LVEF improvement by 30 days; higher mean aortic valve gradient was associated with increased odds of LVEF improvement (odds ratio, 1.04 per 1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval, 1.01, 1.08]). Failure to improve LVEF by 30 days was associated with adverse 1-year outcomes after TAVR but not SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and LV dysfunction, mortality rates and LV functional recovery were comparable between valve replacement techniques. TAVR is a feasible alternative for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and LV dysfunction who are at high risk for SAVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to identify incidence, predictors, and impact of vascular complications (VC) after transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: VC after TF-TAVR are frequent and may be associated with unfavorable prognosis. METHODS: From the randomized controlled PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial, a total of 419 patients (177 from cohort B [inoperable] and 242 from cohort A [operable high-risk]) were randomly assigned to TF-TAVR and actually received the designated treatment. First-generation Edwards-Sapien valves and delivery systems were used, via a 22- or 24-F sheath. The 30-day rates of major and minor VC (modified Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions), predictors, and effect on 1-year mortality were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (15.3%) had major VC and 50 patients (11.9%) had minor VC within 30 days of the procedure. Among patients with major VC, vascular dissection (62.8%), perforation (31.3%), and access-site hematoma (22.9%) were the most frequent modes of presentation. Major VC, but not minor VC, were associated with significantly higher 30-day rates of major bleeding, transfusions, and renal failure requiring dialysis, and with a significantly higher rate of 30-day and 1-year mortality. The only identifiable independent predictor of major VC was female gender (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08 to 4.98], p = 0.03). Major VC (HR: 2.31 [95% CI: 1.20 to 4.43], p = 0.012), and renal disease at baseline (HR: 2.26 [95% CI: 1.34 to 3.81], p = 0.002) were identified as independent predictors of 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Major VC were frequent after TF-TAVR in the PARTNER trial using first-generation devices and were associated with high mortality. However, the incidence and impact of major VC on 1-year mortality decreased with lower-risk populations.