A randomized double-blind controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDAlthough convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at 5 sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or normal control plasma. The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSOf 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to receive normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.68, P = 0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, P = 0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected.CONCLUSIONIn adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810.FUNDINGAmazon Foundation, Skoll Foundation.

Urologic Complications in Patients Receiving Indwelling Urinary Catheters During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The minimalist approach to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) focuses on avoiding extraneous invasive measures. Data describing the clinical impact of routine indwelling urinary catheter (IUC) in TAVR patients is limited. We sought to examine outcomes after IUC placement in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 773 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR between 2011 and 2015. Patients were excluded who did not receive an IUC, had a pre-existing IUC, had renal replacement therapy, or underwent non-transfemoral TAVR. Patients were classified by presence of the composite of in-hospital urologic adverse events (UAEs), defined as urinary retention, IUC reinsertion, discharge with IUC, new hematuria, or urinary tract infection (UTI). The primary study endpoint was all-cause mortality at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 520 patients met study criteria and were analyzed. The incidence of UAE was 28.6%. Urinary retention after IUC removal occurred in 14.6% of patients. UTIs occurred in 6.5% and acute kidney injury occurred in 13.6% of IUC patients. UAE was associated with an increased rate of 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-7.35; P=.02 and HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-3.16; P<.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment for important baseline differences, UAEs were associated with significantly greater hazard of 1-year mortality (adjusted HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.07-2.99; P=.03) but not 30-day mortality (adjusted HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.49; P=.22). CONCLUSION: UAEs were frequent in patients receiving an IUC during TAVR and were associated with substantial morbidity, as well as longer hospital stay. Further research is required to establish whether avoidance of IUC as a component of the minimalist approach will reduce UAEs.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 - 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 - 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Early Single-Site Experience With Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study presents a single-site experience of 5 patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) who underwent implantation of a novel transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement device. BACKGROUND: Functional TR is the most common etiology of severe TR in the developed world and is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Although numerous transcatheter repair devices are currently in early clinical trials, most result in incomplete degrees of TR reduction and functional improvement. METHODS: Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 5 patients with compassionate use of the novel GATE System. All patients had symptomatic, massive and/or torrential TR at baseline. All patients had computed tomography, transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiographic assessment of the tricuspid valve and right heart anatomy. All patients had a surgical transatrial approach performed with valve implantation guided by fluoroscopy and intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients showed a substantial burden of comorbidities. All patients had successful implantation of the transcatheter valve, with significant reduction of TR to ≤2+. Baseline poor right ventricular (RV) function measured by global longitudinal strain and RV change in pressure divided by change in time were associated with post-implantation RV failure and poor clinical outcomes in this small group. Four of the 5 patients were followed for 3 to 6 months following the initial implantation and showed evidence of RV remodeling, increased cardiac output, and reduction in New York Heart Association functional class. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of a first-generation TTVR device was technically feasible in patients with more than severe TR. Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement was associated with RV remodeling, increased cardiac output, and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class in most patients. Further studies are needed to refine patient population selection for this device and to determine long-term outcomes.

Imaging in patients with severe mitral annular calcification: insights from a multicentre experience using transatrial balloon-expandable valve replacement.

AIMS: To investigate valve sizing and the haemodynamic relevance of the predicted left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) in patients with mitral annular calcification (MAC) undergoing transatrial transcatheter valve implantation (THV). METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 21 patients undergoing transatrial THV, multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), maximum intensity projection (MIP), and cubic spline interpolation (CSI) were compared for MA sizing during diastole. In addition, predicted neo-LVOT areas were measured in 18 patients and correlated with the post-procedural haemodynamic dimensions. The procedure was successful in all patients (100%). Concomitant aortic valve replacement was performed in eight patients (43%) (AVR group). Sizing using MPR and MIP yielded comparable results in terms of area, perimeter, and diameter, whereas the dimensions obtained with CSI were systematically smaller. The simulated mean systolic neo-LVOT area was 133.4 ± 64.2 mm2 with an anticipated relative LVOT area reduction (neo-LVOT area/LVOT area × 100) of 59.3 ± 14.7%. The systolic relative LVOT area reduction, but not the absolute neo-LVOT area, was found to predict the peak (r = 0.69; P = 0.002) and mean (r = 0.65; P = 0.004) post-operative aortic gradient in the overall population as well as separately in the AVR (peak: r = 0.91; P = 0.002/mean: r = 0.85; P = 0.002) and no-AVR (peak: r = 0.89; P = 0.003/mean: r = 0.72; P = 0.008) groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe MAC undergoing transatrial transcatheter valve implantation, MPR, and MIP yielded comparable annular dimensions, while values obtained with CSI tended to be systematically smaller. Mitral annular area and the average annular diameter appear to be reliable parameters for valve selection. Simulated relative LVOT reduction was found to predict the post-procedural aortic gradients.

Comparison between Three-Dimensional Echocardiography and Computed Tomography for Comprehensive Tricuspid Annulus and Valve Assessment in Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation: Implications for Tricuspid Regurgitation Grading and Transcatheter Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve imaging is frequently challenging and requires the use of multiple modalities. Knowledge of limitations and methodologic discrepancies among different imaging techniques is crucial for planning transcatheter valve interventions. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation were included in this retrospective analysis. Tricuspid annulus (TA) measurements were made during mid-diastole using three-dimensional (3D) transthoracic echocardiographic direct planimetry (TTE_direct) and transesophageal echocardiographic direct planimetry (TEE_direct). Moreover, a semiautomated software was used to generate two-dimensional (2D) and 3D perimeter and area on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) images. Both methods were compared with direct computed tomographic planimetry (CT_direct) and cubic spline interpolation (CT_indirect). The different TA values were used to calculate the effective regurgitant orifice area and compared with 3D Doppler vena contracta area. For tricuspid valve area TEE_direct and CT_direct as well as CT_indirect were measured. RESULTS: Agreement between TEE and computed tomography (CT) for TA sizing was obtained using semiautomated methods (3D TEE_indirect and CT_indirect). TTE_direct was overall less reliable compared with CT. TA area quantified by TEE_direct was 25% (difference 305 ± 238 mm2, P < .001, R = 0.9) and 19% (166 ± 247 mm2, P < .001, R = 0.89) smaller compared with CT_direct and CT_indirect, respectively. TA perimeter measurements by TEE_direct differed by 11% compared with CT_direct (12 ± 11 mm, P < .001, R = 0.87) and 3D CT_indirect (12 ± 11 mm, P < .001, R = 0.88), and 9% compared with 2D CT_indirect (7 ± 11 mm, P = .002, R = 0.87). TEE_direct of the TA allows the most accurate calculation of effective regurgitant orifice area compared with 3D vena contracta area (-8 ± 62 mm2, P = .50, R = 0.85). Tricuspid valve area by CT_indirect best correlated with conventional TEE_direct (80 ± 250 mm2, P = .11, R = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, semiautomated indirect planimetry results in high agreement between TEE and CT for TA sizing and measurement of the tricuspid valve area. TEE_direct of the TA allows the most accurate measurement of diastolic stroke volume for the calculation of regurgitation severity compared with 3D vena contracta area.

Bicuspid aortic valve increases risk of permanent pacemaker implant following aortic root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the incidence and possible differences in postoperative conduction delay after aortic root replacement (ARR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients compared with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). METHODS: A total of 380 patients undergoing ARR at our institution between 2005 and 2013 were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified by aortic valve anatomy: BAV, n = 191 vs TAV, n = 189. Electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data were retrospectively analysed at different time points (pre-, postoperatively and at follow-up). Primary outcome of interest was permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation within 30 days, the composite of new PPM or new left fascicular or bundle branch block (PPM or LBBB) was the secondary outcome of interest. Age range was 24-89.5 years and incidence of preoperative moderate to severe aortic stenosis was 9.7%. RESULTS: BAV patients had higher incidence of PPM implantation within 30 days (5.8 vs 1.6% in TAV, P = 0.053); moreover, the composite of PPM or LBBB was also more frequent in BAV (8.4 vs 2.1%, P = 0.010). BAV was independently associated with PPM insertion (OR 4.08, P = 0.047) and also an independent predictor of PPM or LBBB in multiple regression (OR 4.96, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly higher incidence of PPM implantation or LBBB may exist after ARR in bicuspid patients and BAV was confirmed to be an independent predictor for postoperative conduction disturbances by multivariable regression.