Gender analysis of the pivotal results of the Medtronic Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System (VALOR) trial

PurposeThis study evaluated the differences between male and female patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) in a pivotal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved trial.MethodsThe Evaluation of the Medtronic Vascular Talent Thoracic Stent Graft System for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms (VALOR) study was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, pivotal trial conducted in the United States. Patients were enrolled between December 2003 and June 2005. Follow-up was conducted at 30 and 365 days.ResultsVALOR enrolled 115 men (58.9%; 69.3 ± 11.7 years old), and 80 women (41.1%; 71.6 ± 10.1 years old). Iliac conduits were used more often in women, who had smaller diameter external iliac arteries, than in men (38.8% vs 8.8%, P < .001). Women required more blood transfusions and had a longer hospital length of stay. At 30 days, more major adverse events occurred in women than in men (52.5% vs 33.0%, P = .008), with more vascular access-related and respiratory complications. No gender-based differences were seen in all-cause mortality or in aneurysm-related death. The composite end point of 365-day “successful aneurysm treatment,” defined as no aneurysm growth >5 mm at the 365-day follow-up visit compared with the 30-day follow-up visit and absence of any type I endoleak requiring a secondary procedure, favored women over men (98.2% vs 82.4%, P = .004).ConclusionsTEVAR with the Talent device provided similar rates of 365-day mortality and morbidity for men and women. Although female patients had higher rates of periprocedural complications, they also more often had successful aneurysm treatment at the 1-year follow-up

Endovascular stent grafting versus open surgical repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms in low-risk patients: A multicenter comparative trial

ObjectiveResults are presented from the first completed multicenter trial directed at gaining approval from the US Food and Drug Administration of endovascular versus open surgical repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms.MethodsBetween September 1999 and May 2001, 140 patients with descending thoracic aneurysms were enrolled at 17 sites and evaluated for a Gore TAG Thoracic Endograft. An open surgical control cohort of 94 patients was identified by enrolling historical and concurrent subjects. Patients were assessed before treatment, at treatment, and at hospital discharge and returned for follow-up visits at 1 month, 6 months, and annually thereafter.ResultsOne hundred thirty-seven of 140 patients had successful implantation of the endograft. Perioperative mortality in the endograft versus open surgical control cohort was 2.1% (n = 3) versus 11.7% (n = 11, P < .001). Thirty-day analysis revealed a statistically significant lower incidence of the following complications in the endovascular cohort versus the surgical cohort: spinal cord ischemia (3% vs 14%), respiratory failure (4% vs 20%), and renal insufficiency (1% vs 13%). The endovascular group had a higher incidence of peripheral vascular complications (14% vs 4%). The mean lengths of intensive care unit stay (2.6 ± 14.6 vs 5.2 ± 7.2 days) and hospital stay (7.4 ± 17.7 vs 14.4 ± 12.8 days) were significantly shorter in the endovascular cohort. At 1 and 2 years’ follow-up, the incidence of endoleaks was 6% and 9%, respectively. Through 2 years of follow-up, there were 3 reinterventions in the endograft cohort and none in the open surgical control cohort. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no difference in overall mortality at 2 years.ConclusionsIn this multicenter study early outcomes with descending aortic endovascular stent grafting were very encouraging when compared with those of a well-matched surgical cohort. However, at 2 years’ follow-up, there is an incidence of endoleaks and reinterventions associated with endovascular versus open surgical repair. Continued vigilant surveillance of patients treated with an endograft is important

Effect of volume reduction on lung transplant timing and selection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AbstractBackground: End-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has traditionally been treated with lung transplantation. For 2 years, our lung transplantation program has placed patients with appropriate criteria for lung transplantation and volume reduction into a prospective management algorithm. These patients are offered the lung volume reduction option as a “bridge” to “extend” the eventual time to transplantation. We examine the results of this pilot program. Methods: From October 11, 1993, to April 17, 1997, 31 patients were evaluated for lung transplantation who also had physiologic criteria for volume reduction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≤ 25%; residual volume > 200%; significant ventilation/perfusion heterogeneity). All patients completed 6 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation and then had baseline pulmonary function and 6-minute walk tests. These patients were then offered volume reduction as a “bridge” and were simultaneously listed for transplantation. Postoperatively, these 31 patients were then divided into two groups: Those with satisfactory results at 4 to 6 months after volume reduction and those with unsatisfactory results. Volume reduction was performed through a video thoracic approach in 87% of the patients and bilateral median sternotomy in the remaining 13%. The condition of the patients was monitored after the operation with repeated pulmonary function tests and 6-minute walk tests at 3-month intervals. Results: Twenty-four of 31 patients (77.4%) had primary success (at 4 to 6 months) results after lung volume reduction and 7 patients (22.6%) had primary failure, including 1 patient who died in the perioperative period (3.2%). Four patients (16.7%) from the primary success cohort had significant deterioration in their pulmonary function during intermediate-term follow-up and were then reconsidered for lung transplantation. Two of them have subsequently undergone transplantation with good postoperative pulmonary function results. Interestingly, three patients had α1-antitrypsin deficiency; two had a poor outcome of lung volume reduction and primary failure. Conclusions: Lung volume reduction in these patients is safe. Seventy-seven percent of otherwise suitable candidates for lung transplantation achieved initial good results from volume reduction and were deactivated from the list (placed on status 7). Most patients entering our prospective management algorithm have either significantly delayed or completely avoided lung transplantation after volume reduction. Lung volume reduction has substantially affected the practice, timing, and selection of patients for lung transplantation. Our waiting list now has a reduced percentage of patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared with 3 years ago. Our experience suggests that lung volume reduction may be limited as a “bridge” in α1-antitrypsin deficiency. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;115:9-18

Valve-sparing and valve-replacing techniques for aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome: Analysis of early outcome

ObjectiveA prospective, international registry study was initiated to provide contemporary comparative data on short-term clinical outcomes after aortic valve-sparing and aortic valve-replacing root operations in patients with Marfan syndrome. The purpose of this initial report is to describe the study design and to compare early outcomes in the first 151 enrolled patients.MethodsWe assessed 30-day outcomes in 151 patients who met strict Ghent diagnostic criteria for Marfan syndrome and underwent aortic root replacement with either valve-replacing (n = 46) or valve-sparing techniques (n = 105) at one of 18 participating centers. In the valve replacement group, a mechanical composite valve graft was used in 39 (85%) patients and a bioprosthetic valve in 7 (15%). In the valve-sparing group, David V procedures were performed in 57 (54%) patients, David I in 38 (36%), David IV in 8 (8%), Florida sleeve in 1 (1%), and Yacoub remodeling in 1 (1%).ResultsNo in-hospital or 30-day deaths occurred. Despite longer crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times in the valve-sparing group, there were no significant between-group differences in postoperative complications. Thirty-day valve-related complications occurred in 2 (4%) patients undergoing valve replacement and in 3 (3%) undergoing valve-sparing procedures (P = .6).ConclusionsThe analysis of early outcomes revealed that valve-sparing techniques were the most common approach to root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome in these centers. The complexity of valve-sparing root replacement did not translate into any demonstrable adverse early outcomes. Subsequent analysis will compare the 3-year durability of these two surgical approaches

Evaluation of flow after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow aortic stenosis : a secondary analysis of the PARTNER randomized clinical trial

Importance: Low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis (AS) is an independent predictor of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Little is known about improvement in flow after AVR and its effects on survival. Objective: To determine whether higher flow (left-ventricular stroke volume index [LVSVI]) after transcatheter AVR (TAVR) would indicate better clinical outcomes in this at-risk population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy analysis of data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized clinical trial and continued-access registry was conducted. A total of 984 participants with evaluable echocardiograms and baseline LF AS (LVSVI =35 mL/m2) were included. The trial was conducted at 26 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were stratified after TAVR into tertiles by discharge LVSVI status (severe low flow [SLF], moderate low flow [MLF], and normal flow [(NF]). The present study was conducted from May 11, 2007, to January 9, 2012, with data analysis performed from April 25, 2014, to January 21, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Results: Baseline characteristics of 984 patients with LF AS included mean (SD) age, 84 (7) years; 582 (59.1%) men; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, 11.4% (4.0%); and mean LVSVI, 27.6 (5.0) mL/m2. The discharge LVSVI values by group were SLF, 23.1 (3.5) mL/m2; MLF, 31.7 (2.2) mL/m2; and NF, 43.1 (7.0). All-cause mortality at 1 year was SLF, 26.5%; MLF, 20.1%; and NF, 19.6% (P¿=¿.045). Mean LVSVI normalized by 6 months in the MLF (35.9 [9.3] mL/m2) and NF (38.8 [11.1] mL/m2) groups, but remained low in the SLF group at 6 months and 1 year (31.4 [8.4] and 33.0 [8.3] mL/m2], respectively) (P¿<¿.001 for all groups). Reported as multivariate hazard ratio, mortality at 1 year was higher in the SLF group compared with the other groups (1.61; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P¿=¿.004). In addition to SLF, sex (1.59; 95% CI, 1.18-2.13; P¿=¿.002), presence of atrial fibrillation (1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.87; P¿=¿.02), STS score (1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P¿=¿.02), presence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation at discharge (1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P¿=¿.001), pre-TAVR mean transvalvular gradient (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P¿=¿.004), and effective orifice area index (1.87; 95% CI, 1.09-3.19; P¿=¿.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Severe LF at discharge is associated with an increased risk of mortality following TAVR in patients with severe AS and preexisting LF. The identification of remedial causes of persistent LF after TAVR may represent an opportunity to improve the outcome of these patients

A Composite Metric for Benchmarking Site Performance in TAVR: Results from the STS/ACC TVT Registry

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformative therapy for aortic stenosis. Despite rapid improvements in technology and techniques, serious complications remain relatively common and are not well described by single outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is site-level variation in TAVR outcomes in the United States using a novel 30-day composite measure. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the STS/ACC TVT Registry to develop a novel ranked composite performance measure that incorporates mortality and serious complications. The selection and rank order of the complications for the composite was determined by their adjusted association with 1-year outcomes. Sites whose risk-adjusted outcomes were significantly more or less frequent than the national average based on a 95% probability interval were classified as performing worse or better than expected. Results: The development cohort consisted of 52,561 patients who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Based on the associations with 1-year risk-adjusted mortality and health status, we identified four periprocedural complications to include in the composite risk model in addition to mortality. Ranked empirically according to severity, these included stroke, major, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage III acute kidney injury, and moderate or severe peri-valvular regurgitation. Based on these ranked outcomes, we found that there was significant site-level variation in quality of care in TAVR in the United States. Overall, better than expected site performance was observed in 25/301 (8%) of sites; performance as expected was observed in 242/301 sites (80%); and worse than expected performance was observed in 34/301 (11%) of sites. Thirty-day mortality, stroke, major, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, and moderate or severe peri-valvular leak were each substantially more common in sites with worse than expected performance as compared with other sites. There was good aggregate reliability of the model. Conclusions: There are substantial variations in the quality of TAVR care received in the United States, and 11% of sites were identified as providing care below the average level of performance. Further study is necessary to determine structural, process-related, and technical factors associated with high- and low-performing sites

Patients with type A acute aortic dissection presenting with major brain injury: Should we operate on them?

none20siopenDi Eusanio, Marco*; Patel, Himanshu J.; Nienaber, Christoph A.; Montgomery, Daniel M.; Korach, Amit; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Devincentiis, Carlo; Voehringer, Matthias; Peterson, Mark D.; Myrmel, Truls; Folesani, Gianluca; Larsen, Magnus; Desai, Nimesh D.; Bavaria, Joseph E.; Appoo, Jehangir J.; Kieser, Teresa M.; Fattori, Rossella; Eagle, Kim; Di Bartolomeo, Roberto; Trimarchi, SantiDi Eusanio, Marco; Patel, Himanshu J.; Nienaber, Christoph A.; Montgomery, Daniel M.; Korach, Amit; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Devincentiis, Carlo; Voehringer, Matthias; Peterson, Mark D.; Myrmel, Truls; Folesani, Gianluca; Larsen, Magnus; Desai, Nimesh D.; Bavaria, Joseph E.; Appoo, Jehangir J.; Kieser, Teresa M.; Fattori, Rossella; Eagle, Kim; Di Bartolomeo, Roberto; Trimarchi, Sant

GenTAC registry report: Gender differences among individuals with genetically triggered thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection

Previous data suggest women are at increased risk of death from aortic dissection. Therefore, we analyzed data from the GenTAC registry, the NIH‐sponsored program that collects information about individuals with genetically triggered thoracic aortic aneurysms and cardiovascular conditions. We performed cross‐sectional analyses in adults with Marfan syndrome (MFS), familial thoracic aortic aneurysm or dissection (FTAAD), bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with thoracic aortic aneurysm or dissection, and subjects under 50 years of age with thoracic aortic aneurysm or dissection (TAAD <50 years). Women comprised 32% of 1,449 subjects and were 21% of subjects with BAV, 34% with FTAAD, 22% with TAAD <50 years, and 47% with MFS. Thoracic aortic dissections occurred with equal gender frequency yet women with BAV had more extensive dissections. Aortic size was smaller in women but was similar after controlling for BSA. Age at operation for aortic valve dysfunction, aneurysm or dissection did not differ by gender. Multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, BSA, hypertension, study site, diabetes, and subgroup diagnoses) showed that women had fewer total aortic surgeries (OR = 0.65, P  < 0.01) and were less likely to receive angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi; OR = 0.68, P  < 0.05). As in BAV, other genetically triggered aortic diseases such as FTAAD and TAAD <50 are more common in males. In women, decreased prevalence of aortic operations and less treatment with ACEi may be due to their smaller absolute aortic diameters. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine if women are at higher risk for adverse events. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97193/1/35836_ftp.pd

Stratification of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to Surgical Inoperability for Technical Versus Clinical Reasons

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to examine the impact of reasons for surgical inoperability on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe aortic stenosis may be deemed inoperable due to technical or clinical reasons. The relative impact of each designation on early and late outcomes after TAVR is unclear.MethodsPatients were studied from the inoperable arm (cohort B) of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial and the nonrandomized continued access registry. Patients were classified according to whether they were classified as technically inoperable (TI) or clinically inoperable (CLI). Reasons for TI included porcelain aorta, previous mediastinal radiation, chest wall deformity, and potential for injury to previous bypass graft on sternal re-entry. Reasons for CLI were systemic factors that were deemed to make survival unlikely.ResultsOf the 369 patients, 23.0% were considered inoperable for technical reasons alone; the remaining were judged to be CLI. For TI, the most common cause was a porcelain aorta (42%); for CLI, it was multiple comorbidities (48%) and frailty (31%). Quality of life and 2-year mortality were significantly better among TI patients compared with CLI patients (mortality 23.3% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, TAVR led to substantial survival benefits compared with standard therapy in both inoperable cohorts.ConclusionsPatients undergoing TAVR based solely on TI have better survival and quality of life improvements than those who are inoperable due to clinical comorbidities. Both TI and CLI TAVR have significant survival benefit in the context of standard therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894