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

Angiographic Features and Clinical Outcomes of Balloon Uncrossable Lesions during Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Balloon uncrossable lesions are defined as lesions that cannot be crossed with a balloon after successful guidewire crossing. Methods: We analyzed the association between balloon uncrossable lesions and procedural outcomes of 8671 chronic total occlusions (CTOs) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed between 2012 and 2022 at 41 centers. Results: The prevalence of balloon uncrossable lesions was 9.2%. The mean patient age was 64.2 ± 10 years and 80% were men. Patients with balloon uncrossable lesions were older (67.3 ± 9 vs. 63.9 ± 10, p \u3c 0.001) and more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (40% vs. 25%, p \u3c 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 42%, p \u3c 0.001) compared with patients who had balloon crossable lesions. In-stent restenosis (23% vs. 16%. p \u3c 0.001), moderate/severe calcification (68% vs. 40%, p \u3c 0.001), and moderate/severe proximal vessel tortuosity (36% vs. 25%, p \u3c 0.001) were more common in balloon uncrossable lesions. Procedure time (132 (90, 197) vs. 109 (71, 160) min, p \u3c 0.001) was longer and the air kerma radiation dose (2.55 (1.41, 4.23) vs. 1.97 (1.10, 3.40) min, p \u3c 0.001) was higher in balloon uncrossable lesions, while these lesions displayed lower technical (91% vs. 99%, p \u3c 0.001) and procedural (88% vs. 96%, p \u3c 0.001) success rates and higher major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates (3.14% vs. 1.49%, p \u3c 0.001). Several techniques were required for balloon uncrossable lesions. Conclusion: In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 9.2% of the successfully crossed CTOs were initially balloon uncrossable. Balloon uncrossable lesions exhibited lower technical and procedural success rates and a higher risk of complications compared with balloon crossable lesions

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality among Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 � 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 �103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI,-6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P =.70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI,-� to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)