Amaze: a double-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an ablation device-based maze procedure as an adjunct to routine cardiac surgery for patients with pre-existing atrial fibrillation

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated using a maze procedure during planned cardiac surgery, but the effect on clinical patient outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness compared with surgery alone, are uncertain. Objectives: To determine whether or not the maze procedure is safe, improves clinical and patient outcomes and is cost-effective for the NHS in patients with AF. Design: Multicentre, Phase III, pragmatic, double-blind, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis using random permuted blocks, stratified for surgeon and planned procedure. Setting: Eleven acute NHS specialist cardiac surgical centres. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years, scheduled for elective or in-house urgent cardiac surgery, with a documented history (> 3 months) of AF. Interventions: Routine cardiac surgery with or without an adjunct maze procedure administered by an AF ablation device. Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were return to sinus rhythm (SR) at 12 months and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 2 years after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to SR at 2 years, overall and stroke-free survival, drug use, quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness and safety. Results: Between 25 February 2009 and 6 March 2014, 352 patients were randomised to the control (n = 176) or experimental (n = 176) arms. The odds ratio (OR) for return to SR at 12 months was 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54; p = 0.0091]. The mean difference (95% CI) in QALYs at 2 years between the two trial arms (maze/control) was –0.025 (95% CI 0.129 to 0.078; p = 0.6319). The OR for SR at 2 years was 3.24 (95% CI 1.76 to 5.96). The number of patients requiring anticoagulant drug use was significantly lower in the maze arm from 6 months after the procedure. There were no significant differences between the two arms in operative or overall survival, stroke-free survival, need for cardioversion or permanent pacemaker implants, New York Heart Association Functional Classification (for heart failure), EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version score and Short Form questionnaire-36 items score at any time point. Sixty per cent of patients in each trial arm had a serious adverse event (p = 1.000); most events were mild, but 71 patients (42.5%) in the maze arm and 84 patients (45.5%) in the control arm had moderately severe events; 31 patients (18.6%) in the maze arm and 38 patients (20.5%) in the control arm had severe events. The mean additional cost of the maze procedure was £3533 (95% CI £1321 to £5746); the mean difference in QALYs was –0.022 (95% CI –0.1231 to 0.0791). The maze procedure was not cost-effective at £30,000 per QALY over 2 years in any analysis. In a small substudy, the active left atrial ejection fraction was smaller than that of the control patients (mean difference of –8.03, 95% CI –12.43 to –3.62), but within the predefined clinically equivalent range. Limitations: Low recruitment, early release of trial summaries and intermittent resource-use collection may have introduced bias and imprecise estimates. Conclusions: Ablation can be practised safely in routine NHS cardiac surgical settings and increases return to SR rates, but not survival or QoL up to 2 years after surgery. Lower anticoagulant drug use and recovery of left atrial function support anticoagulant drug withdrawal provided that good atrial function is confirmed. Further work: Continued follow-up and long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Comparison of ablation methods. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82731440.NIHR Health Technology Assessment programm

Regional Patterns of Late Medieval and Early Modern European Building Activity Revealed by Felling Dates

Although variations in building activity are a useful indicator of societal well-being and demographic development, historical datasets for larger regions and longer periods are still rare. Here, we present 54,045 annually precise dendrochronological felling dates from historical construction timber from across most of Europe between 1250 and 1699 CE to infer variations in building activity. We use geostatistical techniques to compare spatiotemporal dynamics in past European building activity against independent demographic, economic, social and climatic data. We show that the felling dates capture major geographical patterns of demographic trends, especially in regions with dense data coverage. A particularly strong negative association is found between grain prices and the number of felling dates. In addition, a significant positive association is found between the number of felling dates and mining activity. These strong associations, with well-known macro-economic indicators from pre-industrial Europe, corroborate the use of felling dates as an independent source for exploring large-scale fluctuations of societal well-being and demographic development. Three prominent examples are the building boom in the Hanseatic League region of northeastern Germany during the 13th century, the onset of the Late Medieval Crisis in much of Europec. 1300, and the cessation of building activity in large parts of central Europe during armed conflicts such as the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648 CE). Despite new insights gained from our European-wide felling date inventory, further studies are needed to investigate changes in construction activity of high versus low status buildings, and of urban versus rural buildings, and to compare those results with a variety of historical documentary sources and natural proxy archives.</jats:p

Prognostic factors for malignant mesothelioma in 142 patients: validation of CALGB and EORTC prognostic scoring systems

BACKGROUND—The incidence of malignant mesothelioma is increasing. There is the perception that survival is worse in the UK than in other countries. However, it is important to compare survival in different series based on accurate prognostic data. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the Cancer and Leukaemia Group B (CALGB) have recently published prognostic scoring systems. We have assessed the prognostic variables, validated the EORTC and CALGB prognostic groups, and evaluated survival in a series of 142patients.
METHODS—Case notes of 142 consecutive patients presenting in Leicester since 1988 were reviewed. Univariate analysis of prognostic variables was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Statistically significant variables were analysed further in a forward, stepwise multivariate model. EORTC and CALGB prognostic groups were derived, Kaplan-Meier survival curves plotted, and survival rates were calculated from life tables.
RESULTS—Significant poor prognostic factors in univariate analysis included male sex, older age, weight loss, chest pain, poor performance status, low haemoglobin, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, and non-epithelial cell type (p<0.05). The prognostic significance of cell type, haemoglobin, white cell count, performance status, and sex were retained in the multivariate model. Overall median survival was 5.9 (range 0-34.3) months. One and two year survival rates were 21.3% (95% CI 13.9 to 28.7) and 3.5% (0 to 8.5), respectively. Median, one, and two year survival data within prognostic groups in Leicester were equivalent to the EORTC and CALGB series. Survival curves were successfully stratified by the prognostic groups.
CONCLUSIONS—This study validates the EORTC and CALGB prognostic scoring systems which should be used both in the assessment of survival data of series in different countries and in the stratification of patients into randomised clinical studies.