Patent foramen ovale closure: A prospective UK registry linked to hospital episode statistics.

AIMS: PFO closure is a percutaneous intervention, which aims to reduce risk of recurrent stroke by preventing paradoxical embolism. The objective of this study was to measure procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of PFO closure in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective registry data from patients with cryptogenic stroke eligible for PFO closure were collected for up to 2 years and linked to routine data sources for additional follow-up. Outcomes of interest included procedural success rate, health related quality of life, and longer-term death and neurological event rates. A total of 973 PFO closure procedures in 971 patients were included in analysis. Successful device implantation was achieved in 99.4 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.8]% of procedures, with one in-hospital death. During median follow-up of 758 (Q1:Q3 527:968) days, 33 patients experienced a subsequent neurological event, 76% of which were ischaemic in origin. Neurological event rate was 2.7 [95%CI 1.6 to 3.9]% at 1-year (n = 751) and 4.1 [95% CI 2.6 to 5.5]% at 2-years (n = 463) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Improvements in patient quality of life (utility and visual analogue scale) were observed at 6-weeks and 6-months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our observational study demonstrates that PFO closure for prevention of recurrent stroke is a relatively safe procedure but in routine clinical practice is associated with a slightly higher risk of recurrent neurological events than in randomised trials. We hypothesize that our study enrolled unselected patients with higher baseline risk, who were excluded from randomised trials, but who may benefit from a similar relative reduction in risk from the intervention.

Left atrial appendage occlusion in the UK: prospective registry and data linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics.

AIMS: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) greatly increases the risk of ischaemic stroke. For people with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides a non-pharmacological management alternative. The aim of this study was to measure the procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of LAAO for AF in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, single-armed registry of patients with AF for whom anticoagulation was unsuitable. Registry data were collected between October 2014 and April 2018 and linked to routine data sources for follow-up. Data from 583 LAAO procedures were entered into the registry, of which 537 (from 525 patients) were eligible for inclusion (median CHA2DS2-VASc score 4). A closure device was successfully implanted in 93.4% of cases, with a procedural success rate (device implanted without major complication) of 88.9%. Five patients (1.0%) died in hospital. During follow-up [median 729 (Q1:Q3, 523:913) days] 45 patients experienced neurological events; 33 of which were ischaemic. The ischaemic neurological event rate was 3.3 (1.6-5.0)% at 1 year (n = 387) and 7.0 (4.3-9.6)% at 2 years (n = 196). There were significant improvements in overall patient health (via Visual Analogue Scale) measured at 6 weeks and 6 months, but no significant improvements observed in patient utility over time. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study suggest that LAAO is not without procedural risk, but that this risk may be justified in high-risk patients with AF who cannot take an anticoagulant. Moreover, the data do not provide support for more widespread use of LAAO as the complication rate was relatively high and would be difficult to justify in many patients with AF who tolerate anticoagulation.

Safety, effectiveness and costs of percutaneous mitral valve repair: A real-world prospective study.

AIMS: Percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair is a treatment option for some people with severe mitral valve regurgitation for whom conventional mitral valve surgery is clinically inappropriate. This study aimed to determine the safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair, using the MitraClip device in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, single-armed registry with a follow-up of 2 years that reported a range of procedural, clinical and patient-orientated outcomes. Registry data were linked to routine data sources to allow for more comprehensive follow up concerning mortality and healthcare resource use. The registry received data for 199 mainly elective patients with mixed mitral regurgitation aetiology. A MitraClip device was implanted in 187 patients (94%), with a procedural success rate of 86%, with 8% of patients having a serious in-hospital adverse event (including 5% mortality). Percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair reduced mitral regurgitation from 100% MR grade ≥ 3+ to 7% at discharge. There were corresponding improvements in New York Heart Association functional class, reducing from 92% (class ≥ 3) at baseline to 18% at 6 weeks. There were significant improvements in generic and disease specific quality of life indicators up to 2 years. The all-cause mortality rate was estimated to be 12.7% (95% CI 7.5 to 17.7%) at 1 year. Percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair was associated with reduced hospital readmissions and potential cost-savings in post-procedural care. CONCLUSION: This study shows that percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair using MitraClip is a relatively safe and effective treatment in patients unable to tolerate surgery and has the potential to reduce ongoing healthcare costs in the UK.

Comparison of identifiable and non-identifiable data linkage: health technology assessment of MitraClip using registry, administrative and mortality datasets.

OBJECTIVES: The UK MitraClip registry was commissioned by National Health Service (NHS) England to assess real-world outcomes from percutaneous mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation using a new technology, MitraClip. This study aimed to determine longitudinal patient outcomes by linking to routine datasets: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Admitted Patient Care (APC) and Office of National Statistics. METHODS: Two methods of linkage were compared, using identifiable (NHS number, date of birth, postcode, gender) and non-identifiable data (hospital trust, age in years, admission, discharge and operation dates, operation and diagnosis codes). Outcome measures included: matching success, patient demographics, all-cause mortality and subsequent cardiac intervention. RESULTS: A total of 197 registry patients were eligible for matching with routine administrative data. Using identifiable linkage, a total of 187 patients (94.9%) were matched with the HES APC dataset. However, 21 matched individuals (11.2%) had inconsistencies across the datasets (eg, different gender) and were subsequently removed, leaving 166 (84.3%) for analysis. Using non-identifiable data linkage, a total of 170 patients (86.3%) were uniquely matched with the HES APC dataset.Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two methods of data linkage. The total number of deaths (all causes) identified from identifiable and non-identifiable linkage methods was 37 and 40, respectively, and the difference in subsequent cardiac interventions identified between the two methods was negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from a bespoke clinical procedural registry were matched to routine administrative data using identifiable and non-identifiable methods with equivalent matching success rates, similar baseline characteristics and similar 2-year outcomes.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with oligometastatic cancers: a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly being used to treat oligometastatic cancers, but high-level evidence to provide a basis for policy making is scarce. Additional evidence from a real-world setting is required. We present the results of a national study of patients with extracranial oligometastases undergoing SABR, representing the largest dataset, to our knowledge, on outcomes in this population so far. METHODS: In 2015, National Health Service (NHS) England launched a Commissioning through Evaluation scheme that funded a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study of patients with solid cancer and extracranial oligometastases treated with SABR. Prescribed doses ranged from 24-60 Gy administered in three to eight fractions. The study was done at 17 NHS radiotherapy centres in England. Patients were eligible for the scheme if aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary carcinoma (excluding haematological malignancies), one to three extracranial metastatic lesions, a disease-free interval from primary tumour development to metastases of longer than 6 months (with the exception of synchronous colorectal liver metastases), a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. The primary outcome was overall survival at 1 year and 2 years from the start of SABR treatment. The study is now completed. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2015, and Jan 30, 2019, 1422 patients were recruited from 17 hospitals in England. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR 62-76), and the most common primary tumour was prostate cancer (406 [28·6%] patients). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 6-23). Overall survival was 92·3% (95% CI 90·5-93·9) at 1 year and 79·2% (76·0-82·1) at 2 years. The most common grade 3 adverse event was fatigue (28 [2·0%] of 1422 patients) and the most common serious (grade 4) event was increased liver enzymes (nine [0·6%]). Notreatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with extracranial oligometastatic cancer, use of SABR was associated with high overall survival and low toxicity. 'The study findings complement existing evidence from a randomised, phase 2 trial, and represent high-level, real-world evidence supporting the use of SABR in this patient cohort, with a phase 3 randomised, controlled trial to confirm these findings underway. Based on the selection criteria in this study, SABR was commissioned by NHS England in March, 2020, as a treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. FUNDING: NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation scheme.

Effects of the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System on the Quality of Life of Patients With Ultra-Low Vision Due to Retinitis Pigmentosa: Protocol for a Single-Arm, Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Retinitis pigmentosa is an incurable, degenerative retinal condition causing progressive sight loss, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis is a surgically implanted medical device that delivers electrical stimulation to the retina. It is intended to produce a form of artificial vision for blind people with severe-to-profound retinitis pigmentosa by stimulating the remaining viable retinal cells to induce visual perception. This study has been initiated by National Health Service England's Commissioning through Evaluation program and funded through the National Institute of Health Research of the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the Argus II device on patient's daily activities and quality of life. METHODS: This protocol is a prospective, single-arm, open-label, mixed methods study on 10 consecutive participants receiving the Argus II device. The patient representatives played an integral role in the design of this study. Eligibility criteria include ultra-low vision in both eyes as a result of end-stage retinitis pigmentosa and a willingness and capacity to complete the postimplantation rehabilitation program. Participants will be interviewed by independent researchers at baseline and 12 months later by using a semistructured, in-depth approach, alongside validated questionnaires (Impact of Vision Impairment-Very Low Vision, 5-level EuroQoL-5 dimensions scale, EuroQoL-visual analog scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and a bespoke device-related questionnaire, which includes questions about users' experiences with the procedure, the device, and rehabilitation. The effect of the device on patients' functional vision and activities of daily living will be assessed by vision rehabilitation specialists using a set of tests measured on an ordinal scale (eg, ability to locate objects and avoid obstacles). Clinical outcomes include full-field stimulus light threshold, square localization, direction of motion, grating visual acuity, Landolt-C, procedural success, and adverse events. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes will be linked in a single database to enable individual participant measures to be considered in toto, comparing baseline to the final review. RESULTS: This study was approved by the local ethics committee on April 24, 2019 (London-Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee, reference 19/LO/0429). It has also been approved by the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales. At the time of protocol writing, Argus II was available for use in the United Kingdom; however, the manufacturer recently withdrew the Argus II device from sale in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the study is not going ahead at this time. CONCLUSIONS: The mixed methods approach provides a rich and in-depth assessment of the effect of the device on participants' quality of life. Despite the work not going ahead, the publication of this publicly funded protocol is important for researchers planning similar work. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/17436.

Nebulised surfactant for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in adults (COV-Surf): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-Cov-2 virus preferentially binds to the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) on alveolar epithelial type II cells, initiating an inflammatory response and tissue damage which may impair surfactant synthesis contributing to alveolar collapse, worsening hypoxia and leading to respiratory failure. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of nebulised surfactant in COVID-19 adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure. TRIAL DESIGN: This study is a dose-escalating randomized open-label clinical trial of 20 COVID-19 patients. PARTICIPANTS: This study is conducted in two centres: University Hospital Southampton and University College London Hospitals. Eligible participants are aged ≥18, hospitalised with COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR), who require endotracheal intubation and are enrolled within 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. For patients unable to consent, assent is obtained from a personal legal representative (PerLR) or professional legal representative (ProfLR) prior to enrolment. The following are exclusion criteria: imminent expected death within 24 hours; specific contraindications to surfactant administration (e.g. known allergy, pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage); known or suspected pregnancy; stage 4 chronic kidney disease or requiring dialysis (i.e., eGFR < 30); liver failure (Child-Pugh Class C); anticipated transfer to another hospital, which is not a study site, within 72 hours; current or recent (within 1 month) participation in another study that, in the opinion of the investigator, would prevent enrollment for safety reasons; and declined consent or assent. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: The study is based on an investigational drug/device combination product. The surfactant product is Bovactant (Alveofact®), a natural animal derived (bovine) lung surfactant formulated as a lyophilized powder in 108 mg vials and reconstituted to 45 mg/mL in buffer supplied in a prefilled syringe. It is isolated by lung lavage and, by weight, is a mixture of: phospholipid (75% phosphatidylcholine, 13% phosphatidylglycerol, 3% phosphatidylethanolamine, 1% phosphatidylinositol and 1% sphingomyelin), 5% cholesterol, 1% lipid-soluble surfactant-associated proteins (SP-B and SP-C), very low levels of free fatty acid, lyso-phosphatidylcholine, water and 0.3% calcium. The Drug Delivery Device is the AeroFact-COVID™ nebulizer, an investigational device based on the Aerogen® Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer. The timing and escalation dosing plans for the surfactant are as follows. Cohort 1: Three patients will receive 10 vials (1080 mg) each of surfactant at dosing times of 0 hours, 8 hours and 24 hours. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. Cohort 2: Three patients will receive 10 vials (1080 mg) of surfactant at dosing times of 0 hours and 8 hours, and 30 vials (3240 mg) at a dosing time of 24 hours. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. Cohort 3: Three patients will receive 10 vials (1080 mg) of surfactant at a dosing time of 0 hours, and 30 vials (3240 mg) at dosing times of 8 hours and 24 hours. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. Cohort 4: Three patients will receive 30 (3240 mg) vials each of surfactant at dosing times of 0 hours, 8 hours and 24 hours. 2 controls. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. The trial steering committee, advised by the data monitoring committee, will review trial progression and dose escalation/maintenance/reduction after each cohort is completed (48-hour primary outcome timepoint reached) based on available feasibility, adverse event, safety and efficacy data. The trial will not be discontinued on the basis of lack of efficacy. The trial may be stopped early on the basis of safety or feasibility concerns. Comparator: No placebo intervention. All participants will receive usual standard of care in accordance with the local policies for mechanically ventilated patients and all other treatments will be left to the discretion of the attending physician. MAIN OUTCOMES: The co-primary outcome is the improvement in oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 ratio) and pulmonary ventilation (Ventilation Index (VI), where VI = [RR x (PIP - PEEP) × PaCO2]/1000) at 48 hours after study initiation. The secondary outcomes include frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), Adverse Device Effects (ADEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and Serious Adverse Device Events (SADEs), change in pulmonary compliance, change in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) requirement of ventilatory support at 24 and 48 hours after study initiation, clinical improvement defined by time to one improvement point on the ordinal scale described in the WHO master protocol (2020) recorded while hospitalised, days of mechanical ventilation, mechanical ventilator free days (VFD) at day 21, length of intensive care unit stay, number of days hospitalised and mortality at day 28. Exploratory end points will include quantification of SARS-CoV-2 viral load from tracheal aspirates using PCR, surfactant dynamics (synthesis and turnover) and function (surface tension reduction) from deep tracheal aspirate samples (DTAS), surfactant phospholipid concentrations in plasma and DTAS, inflammatory markers (cellular and cytokine) in plasma and DTAS, and blood oxidative stress markers. RANDOMISATION: After informed assent, patients fulfilling inclusion criteria will be randomised to 3:2 for the treatment and control arms using an internet-based block randomization service (ALEA tool for clinical trials, FormsVision BV) in combination with electronic data collection. Randomisation will be done by the recruiting centre with a unique subject identifier specific to that centre. BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open-labelled unblinded study. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The total sample size is 20 COVID-19 mechanically ventilated patients (12 intervention; 8 control). TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol version is V2 dated 5th of June 2020. The recruitment is currently ongoing and started on the 14th of October 2020. The anticipated study completion date is November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04362059 (Registered 24 April 2020), EUDAMED number: CIV-GB-20-06-033328, EudraCT number: 2020-001886-35 (Registered 11 May 2020) FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in 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. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Realities of environmental toxicity and their ramifications for community engagement.

Research on community responses to environmental toxicity has richly described the struggles of citizens to identify unrecognized toxins, collect their own environmental health facts, and use them to lobby authorities for recognition and remediation. Much of this literature is based on an empiricist premise: it is concerned with exploring differences in how laypeople and experts perceive what is presumed to be a singular toxic reality that preexists these varying perspectives. Here, we seek to reexamine this topic by shifting the focus from facts to facticity-that is, by exploring the many types of knowledge that communities develop about toxicity and how these knowledges articulate with the ideas of scientific and governmental authorities about what kinds of information are valid bases for policymaking. In making this shift, we are influenced by work in semiotic anthropology and science and technology studies (STS), which emphasizes that lived experience generates distinct realities rather than different perceptions of the same underlying state. Using this framework, we present an analysis of oral history interviews conducted in 2013-14 in the small American town of Ambler, Pennsylvania. Part of Ambler's legacy as a nineteenth- and twentieth-century center of asbestos manufacture is that it is home to two massive asbestos-containing waste sites, one of which was being remediated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the time of this study. Our interviews demonstrate that even asbestos, a toxin with a well-established public narrative, is a fundamentally different object for different members of the Ambler community. For many of these individuals, the epistemology and practices of the EPA are incongruent with or tangential to their toxicity-related experiences and their consequent concerns for the future. As such, our findings suggest caution in framing the community engagement efforts of environmental health agencies primarily as facilitations of citizen science; this approach does not acknowledge the multiplicity of toxic realities.

Genomic anatomy of the Tyrp1 (brown) deletion complex.

Chromosome deletions in the mouse have proven invaluable in the dissection of gene function. The brown deletion complex comprises >28 independent genome rearrangements, which have been used to identify several functional loci on chromosome 4 required for normal embryonic and postnatal development. We have constructed a 172-bacterial artificial chromosome contig that spans this 22-megabase (Mb) interval and have produced a contiguous, finished, and manually annotated sequence from these clones. The deletion complex is strikingly gene-poor, containing only 52 protein-coding genes (of which only 39 are supported by human homologues) and has several further notable genomic features, including several segments of >1 Mb, apparently devoid of a coding sequence. We have used sequence polymorphisms to finely map the deletion breakpoints and identify strong candidate genes for the known phenotypes that map to this region, including three lethal loci (l4Rn1, l4Rn2, and l4Rn3) and the fitness mutant brown-associated fitness (baf). We have also characterized misexpression of the basonuclin homologue, Bnc2, associated with the inversion-mediated coat color mutant white-based brown (B(w)). This study provides a molecular insight into the basis of several characterized mouse mutants, which will allow further dissection of this region by targeted or chemical mutagenesis.