Efficacy of Semaglutide by Sex in Obesity-Related Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: STEP-HFpEF Trials.

BACKGROUND: More women than men have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess baseline characteristics and treatment effect of semaglutide by sex across the STEP-HFpEF (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity) program. METHODS: In a prespecified secondary analysis of pooled data from STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes), patients with heart failure (HF), left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) <90 points were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or matched placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary endpoints (KCCQ-CSS change and percentage change in body weight) and confirmatory secondary endpoints (6-minute walking distance [6MWD] change; hierarchical composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, HF events, changes in KCCQ-CSS, and 6MWD; and C-reactive protein) were compared between sexes. RESULTS: Of 1,145 patients, 570 (49.7%) were women. Women had higher body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, C-reactive protein, and worse HF symptoms, and were less likely to have atrial fibrillation or coronary artery disease vs men. Semaglutide improved KCCQ-CSS regardless of sex (mean difference in women +7.6 points [95% CI: 4.5-10.7 points]; men +7.5 points [95% CI: 4.3-10.6 points]; P interaction = 0.94) but reduced body weight more in women (mean difference in women -9.6% [95% CI: -10.9% to -8.4%]; men -7.2% [95% CI: -8.4% to -6.0%]; P interaction = 0.006). Semaglutide improved 6MWD (P interaction = 0.21) and the hierarchical composite endpoint (P interaction = 0.66) in both sexes. Fewer serious adverse events were reported with semaglutide vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide 2.4 mg reduced body weight to a greater extent in women, and produced similar improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, regardless of sex. (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity [STEP-HFpEF]; NCT04788511; and Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes [STEP HFpEF DM]; NCT04916470).

Semaglutide and NYHA Functional Class in Obesity-Related Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The STEP-HFpEF Program.

BACKGROUND: In the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and HFpEF (STEP-HFpEF) program, semaglutide improved heart failure (HF)-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced bodyweight in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Whether semaglutide improves functional status, as assessed by NYHA functional class, is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the effects of semaglutide on change in NYHA functional class over time. We also investigated the effects of semaglutide on HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and bodyweight and other trial endpoints across baseline NYHA functional class categories. METHODS: This was a prespecified analysis of pooled data from 2 international, double-blind, randomized trials (STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF type 2 diabetes [STEP-HFpEF DM], comprising the STEP-HFpEF program), which collectively randomized 1,145 participants with obesity-related HFpEF to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. The outcome of interest for this analysis was the change in NYHA functional class (baseline to 52 weeks). We also investigated the effects of semaglutide on the dual primary, confirmatory secondary, and selected exploratory endpoints according to baseline NYHA functional class. RESULTS: More semaglutide-treated than placebo-treated patients had an improvement in NYHA functional class (32.6% vs 21.5%, respectively; OR: 2.20 [95% CI: 1.62-2.99; P < 0.001]) and fewer semaglutide-treated patients experienced deterioration in NYHA functional class (2.09% vs 5.24%, respectively; OR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.19-0.70; P = 0.003]) at 52 weeks. Semaglutide (vs placebo) improved the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CCS) across NYHA functional class categories; this was especially pronounced in those in NYHA functional classes III/IV (10.5 points [95% CI: 6.6-14.4 points]) vs NYHA functional class II (6.0 points [95% CI: 3.4-8.6 points]) (P interaction = 0.06). By contrast, the degree of reduction in bodyweight was similar with semaglutide vs placebo regardless of baseline NYHA functional class category (NYHA functional class II, -8.4% [95% CI: -9.4% to -7.3%]; NYHA functional classes III/IV, -8.3% [95% CI: -9.9% to -6.8%]; P interaction = 0.96). Semaglutide consistently improved 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), the hierarchical composite endpoint (death, HF events, differences in KCCQ-CSS, and 6MWD changes), and reduced C-reactive protein and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide across NYHA functional class categories (all P interactions = NS). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, fewer semaglutide-treated than placebo-treated patients had a deterioration, and more had an improvement, in NYHA functional class at 52 weeks. Semaglutide consistently improved HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced bodyweight and biomarkers of inflammation and congestion in all NYHA functional class categories. Semaglutide-mediated improvements in health status were especially large in patients with NYHA functional classes III/IV. (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity; NCT04788511) (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes; NCT04916470).

Semaglutide and Diuretic Use in Obesity-Related Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Pooled Analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the STEP-HFpEF trial program, treatment with semaglutide resulted in multiple beneficial effects in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Efficacy may vary according to baseline diuretic use, and semaglutide treatment could modify diuretic dose. METHODS: In this pre-specified analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials (n=1145), which randomized participants with HFpEF and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 to once weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, we examined whether efficacy and safety endpoints differed by baseline diuretic use, as well as the effect of semaglutide on loop diuretic use and dose changes over the 52-week treatment period. RESULTS: At baseline, across no diuretic (n=220), non-loop diuretic only (n=223), and loop diuretic (<40 [n=219], 40 [n=309], and >40 [n=174] mg/day furosemide-equivalents) groups, there was progressively higher prevalence of hypertension and atrial fibrillation; and severity of obesity and heart failure. Over 52 weeks of treatment, semaglutide had a consistent beneficial effect on change in body weight across diuretic use categories (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo ranged from -8.8% [95% CI -10.3, -6.3] to -6.9% [95% CI -9.1, -4.7] from no diuretics to the highest loop diuretic dose category; interaction P=0.39). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score improvement was greater in patients on loop diuretics compared to those not on loop diuretics (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo: +9.3 [6.5; 12.1] vs. +4.7 points [1.3, 8.2]; P=0.042). Semaglutide had consistent beneficial effects on all secondary efficacy endpoints (including 6-min walk distance) across diuretic subgroups (interaction P=0.24-0.92). Safety also favored semaglutide versus placebo across the diuretic subgroups. From baseline to 52 weeks, loop diuretic dose decreased by 17% in the semaglutide group vs. a 2.4% increase in the placebo group (P<0.0001). Semaglutide (vs. placebo) was more likely to result in loop diuretic dose reduction (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% CI 1.70, 4.18]) and less likely dose increase (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]; P<0.001 for both) from baseline to 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations across diuretic use subgroups, with more pronounced benefits among patients receiving loop diuretics at baseline. Reductions in weight and improvements in exercise function with semaglutide versus placebo were consistent in all diuretic use categories. Semaglutide also led to a reduction in loop diuretic use and dose between baseline and 52 weeks. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04788511 and NCT04916470.

Economic Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Low Surgical Risk: Results from the PARTNER 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective.

Corrigendum to 'Association Between Hospital Resuscitation Team Leader Credentials and Survival Outcomes for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest' [Mayo Clinic Proceedings Innovation Quality Outcomes, 2021, Vol 5, Issue 6, Pages 1021-1028, Article Number: doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.06.002].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.06.002.].

Economics of Minimalist Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the 3M-TAVR Economic Study.

BACKGROUND: The 3M-TAVR trial (3M-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of next-day hospital discharge after transfemoral TAVR with implementation of a minimalist pathway. However, the economic impact of this approach is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated costs for patients undergoing minimalist TAVR compared with conventional TAVR. METHODS: We used propensity matching to compare resource utilization and costs (from a US health care system perspective) for patients in the 3M-TAVR trial with those for transfemoral TAVR patients enrolled in the contemporaneous S3i trial (PARTNER SAPIEN-3 Intermediate Risk). Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization for both groups. For the S3i group, all other costs through 30-day follow-up were assessed by linkage with Medicare claims; for 3M, these costs were assessed using regression models derived from S3i cost and resource utilization data. RESULTS: After 1:1 propensity matching, 351 pairs were included in our study (mean age 82, mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score 5.3%). There were no differences in death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the 3M-TAVR and S3i groups through 30-day follow-up. Index hospitalization costs were $10 843/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort, driven by reductions in procedure duration, anesthesia costs, and length of stay. Between discharge and 30 days, costs were similar for the 2 groups such that cumulative 30-day costs were $11 305/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort compared with the S3i cohort ($49 425 versus $60 729, 95% CI for difference $9378 to $13 138; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional transfemoral TAVR, use of a minimalist pathway in intermediate-risk patients was associated with similar clinical outcomes and substantial in-hospital cost savings, which were sustained through 30 days. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02287662.

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated. METHODS: From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective. RESULTS: Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P<0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Association Between Hospital Resuscitation Team Leader Credentials and Survival Outcomes for In-hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether survival rates for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary across hospitals depending on whether resuscitations are typically led by an attending physician, a physician trainee, or a nonphysician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2018, we conducted a survey of hospitals participating in the national Get with the Guidelines - Resuscitation registry for IHCA. Using responses from the question "Who typically leads codes at your institution?" we categorized hospitals on the basis of who typically leads their resuscitations: attending physician, physician trainee, or nonphysician. We then compared risk-adjusted hospital rates of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge, and favorable neurological survival from 2015 to 2017 between these 3 hospital groups by using multivariable hierarchical regression. RESULTS: Overall, 193 hospitals completed the study survey, representing a total of 44,477 IHCAs (mean age, 65.0±15.5 years; 40.8% were women). Most hospitals had resuscitations led by physicians, with 121 (62.7%) led by an attending physician, 58 (30.0%) by a physician trainee, and 14 (7.3%) by a nonphysician. The risk-standardized rates of survival to discharge were similar across hospitals, regardless of whether resuscitations were typically led by an attending physician, a physician trainee, or a nonphysician (25.6%±4.8%, 25.9%±4.7%, and 25.7%±3.6%, respectively; P=.88). Similarly, there were no differences between the 3 groups in risk-adjusted rates of return of spontaneous circulation (71.7%±6.3%, 73%±6.3%, and 73.4%±6.4%; P=.30) and favorable neurological survival (21.6%±7.1%, 22.7%±6.1%, and 20.9%±6.5%; P=.50). CONCLUSION: In hospitals in a national IHCA registry, IHCA resuscitations were usually led by physicians. However, there was no association between a hospital's typical resuscitation team leader credentials and IHCA survival outcomes.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis: 2021 update.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has been utilized as an adjunct to anticoagulant therapy in selected patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for approximately 30 years. CDT used to be limited to patients with DVT causing acute limb threat and those exhibiting failure of initial anticoagulation, but has expanded over time. Randomized trials evaluating the first-line use of CDT for proximal DVT have demonstrated that CDT does not produce a major reduction in the occurrence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and that it is poorly suited for elderly patients and those with limited thrombus extent or major risk factors for bleeding. However, CDT does offer selected patients with acute iliofemoral DVT improvement in reducing early DVT symptoms, in achieving reduction in PTS severity, and in producing an improvement in health-related quality of life (QOL). Clinical practice guidelines from medical and surgical societies are now largely aligned with the randomized trial results. This review offers the reader an update on the results of recently completed clinical trials, and additional guidance on appropriate selection of patients with DVT for catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy.

Five-Year Health Status After Self-expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: In the CoreValve High-Risk Trial, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis had similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over 5 years of follow-up, with mortality rates of more than 50% in both groups. Objective: To describe the long-term health status of surviving patients randomized to self-expanding TAVR vs SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis who completed a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and were randomized to either self-expanding TAVR or SAVR from 45 US clinical sites. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2012. Analysis began May 2018 and ended June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in KCCQ and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey over 5 years, as assessed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Because there were significant interactions between access site and treatment for 1-month health status outcomes, all analyses were stratified by access site (iliofemoral or noniliofemoral). Results: Of 713 patients, 377 (53%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 83 (7) years. Prior to treatment, the mean (SD) KCCQ overall summary score (range, 0-100; higher score indicated better health status) was 47 (23), indicating substantial health status impairment. Among surviving patients, the KCCQ overall summary score increased significantly in both groups with greater early benefit with iliofemoral TAVR than SAVR (1-month difference, 16.8 points; 95% CI, 12.4-21.2). However, this early treatment difference between TAVR and SAVR was no longer apparent by 6 months, and there was no significant difference in health status between groups thereafter. At 5 years, 44% (134 of 305) of patients who underwent iliofemoral TAVR and 39% (105 of 266) who underwent SAVR were alive in this high-risk elderly cohort. Among surviving patients for whom health status data were available, 61% (48 of 79) in the TAVR group and 65% (46 of 71) in the SAVR group had KCCQ overall summary score more than 60 (P = .61). In the noniliofemoral cohort, there were no significant health status differences at any time between TAVR and SAVR. Results were similar for individual KCCQ domains and the Short-Form Health Survey. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, there was an early health status benefit with self-expanding iliofemoral TAVR vs SAVR but no difference between groups in long-term health status. Although mortality at 5 years was high in this population, the majority of surviving patients continued to report reasonable health status. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

Association Between Hospital Debriefing Practices With Adherence to Resuscitation Process Measures and Outcomes for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Background Identifying actionable resuscitation practices that vary across hospitals could improve adherence to process measures or outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We sought to examine whether hospital debriefing frequency after IHCA varies across hospitals and whether hospitals which routinely perform debriefing have higher rates of process-of-care compliance or survival. Methods We conducted a nationwide survey of hospital resuscitation practices in April of 2018, which were then linked to data from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation national registry for IHCA. Hospitals were categorized according to their reported frequency of debriefing immediately after IHCA; rarely (0%-20% of all IHCA cases), occasionally (21%-80%), and frequently (81%-100%). Hospital-level rates of timely defibrillation (≤2 minutes), epinephrine administration (≤5 minutes), survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival were comparted for patients with IHCA from 2015 to 2017. Results Overall, there were 193 hospitals comprising 44 477 IHCA events. Mean patient age was 65±16, 41% were females, and 68% were of White race. Across hospitals, 84 (43.5%) rarely performed debriefings immediately after an IHCA, 82 (42.5%) performed debriefing sessions occasionally, and 27 (14.0%) performed debriefing frequently. There was no association between higher reported debriefing frequency and hospital rates of timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration. Mean hospital rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge were similar across debriefing frequency groups (rarely 25.6%; occasionally 26.0%; frequently 25.2%, P=0.72), as were hospital rates of risk-adjusted return of spontaneous circulation (rarely 72.2%; occasionally 73.0%; frequently 70.0%, P=0.06) and neurologically intact survival (rarely 21.9%, occasionally 22.2%, frequently 21.1%, P=0.75). Conclusions In a large contemporary nationwide quality improvement registry, hospitals varied widely in how often they conducted debriefings immediately after IHCA. However, hospital debriefing frequency was not associated with better adherence to timely delivery of epinephrine or defibrillation or higher rates of IHCA survival.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Standard Anticoagulation in Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Results From the ATTRACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at low surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatment strategy on health status is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare health status outcomes of TAVR versus surgery in low-risk patients with severe AS. METHODS: Between March 2016 and October 2017, 1,000 low-risk patients with AS were randomized to transfemoral TAVR using a balloon-expandable valve or surgery in the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial. Health status was assessed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months using the KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), SF-36 (Short Form-36 Health Survey), and EQ-5D (EuroQoL). The primary endpoint was change in KCCQ-OS (KCCQ Overall Summary) score over time. Longitudinal growth curve modeling was used to compare changes in health status between treatment groups over time. RESULTS: At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than surgery (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 16.0 points; p < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, health status remained better with TAVR, although the effect was reduced (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 2.6 and 1.8 points respectively; p < 0.04 for both). The proportion of patients with an excellent outcome (alive with KCCQ-OS ≥75 and no significant decline from baseline) was greater with TAVR than surgery at 6 months (90.3% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.03) and 12 months (87.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR was associated with meaningful early and late health status benefits compared with surgery.

Health Status After Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: COAPT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) led to reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and improved survival in patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) on maximally-tolerated medical therapy. Given the advanced age and comorbidities of these patients, improvement in health status is also an important treatment goal. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the health status outcomes of patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR treated with TMVr versus standard care. METHODS: The COAPT trial randomized patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR to TMVr (n = 302) or standard care (n = 312). Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey. The primary health status endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS; range 0 to 100; higher = better; minimum clinically important difference = 5 points). RESULTS: At baseline, patients had substantially impaired health status (mean KCCQ-OS 52.4 ± 23.0). While health status was unchanged over time in the standard care arm, patients randomized to TMVr demonstrated substantial improvement in the KCCQ-OS at 1 month (mean between-group difference 15.9 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.3 to 19.5 points), with only slight attenuation of this benefit through 24 months (mean between-group difference 12.8 points; 95% CI: 7.5 to 18.2 points). At 24 months, 36.4% of TMVr patients were alive with a moderately large (≥10-point) improvement versus 16.6% of standard care patients (p < 0.001), for a number needed to treat of 5.1 patients (95% CI: 3.6 to 8.7 patients). TMVr patients also reported better generic health status at each timepoint (24-month mean difference in SF-36 summary scores: physical 3.6 points; 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.8 points; mental 3.6 points; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.4 points). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR receiving maximally-tolerated medical therapy, edge-to-edge TMVr resulted in substantial early and sustained health status improvement compared with medical therapy alone. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Quality-of-Life After Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left-Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The EXCEL (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial compared outcomes in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using everolimus-eluting stents. Whereas rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were similar at 36 months, event timing and repeat revascularization rates differed by treatment group. OBJECTIVES: To understand the effects of revascularization strategy from the patient's perspective, a prospective quality of life (QoL) substudy was performed alongside the EXCEL trial. METHODS: Between September 2010 and March 2014, 1,905 patients with LMCAD were randomized to undergo CABG or PCI, of whom 1,788 participated in the QoL substudy. QoL was assessed at baseline and 1, 12, and 36 months using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, the Rose Dyspnea Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8, and the EQ-5D. Differences between PCI and CABG were assessed using longitudinal random-effect growth curve models. RESULTS: Over 36 months, both PCI and CABG were associated with significant improvements in QoL compared with baseline. At 1 month, PCI was associated with better QoL than CABG. By 12 months though, these differences were largely attenuated, and by 36 months, there were no significant QoL differences between PCI and CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Among selected patients with LMCAD, both PCI and CABG result in similar QoL improvement through 36 months, although a greater early benefit is seen with PCI. Taken together with the 3-year clinical results of EXCEL, these findings suggest that PCI and CABG provide similar intermediate-term outcomes for patients with LMCAD. (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Blood Pressure and Arterial Load After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is often characterized by the residual valve obstruction. Our objective was to determine whether higher systemic arterial afterload-as reflected in blood pressure, pulsatile and resistive load-is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Total, pulsatile, and resistive arterial load were measured in 2141 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVR in the PARTNER I trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) who had systolic blood pressure (SBP) and an echocardiogram obtained 30 days after TAVR. The primary end point was 30-day to 1-year all-cause mortality. Lower SBP at 30 days after TAVR was associated with higher mortality (20.0% for SBP 100-129 mm Hg versus 12.0% for SBP 130-170 mm Hg; P<0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment, was consistent across subgroups, and confirmed in sensitivity analyses. In adjusted models that included SBP, higher total and pulsatile arterial load were associated with increased mortality (P<0.001 for all), but resistive load was not. Patients with low 30-day SBP and high pulsatile load had a 3-fold higher mortality than those with high 30-day SBP and low pulsatile load (26.1% versus 8.1%; hazard ratio, 3.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.36-5.55). CONCLUSIONS: Even after relief of valve obstruction in patients with aortic stenosis, there is an independent association between post-TAVR blood pressure, systemic arterial load, and mortality. Blood pressure goals in patients with a history of aortic stenosis may need to be redefined. Increased pulsatile arterial load, rather than blood pressure, may be a target for adjunctive medical therapy to improve outcomes after TAVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Impact of Ezetimibe on the Rate of Cardiovascular-Related Hospitalizations and Associated Costs Among Patients With a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome: Results From the IMPROVE-IT Trial (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial).

BACKGROUND: Ezetimibe, when added to simvastatin therapy, reduces cardiovascular events after recent acute coronary syndrome. However, the impact of ezetimibe on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used patient-level data from the IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) to examine the impact of simvastatin-ezetimibe versus simvastatin-placebo on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and related costs (excluding drug costs) over 7 years follow-up. Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to all cardiovascular hospitalizations. Hospital costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates for 2013. Associated physician costs were estimated as a percentage of hospital costs. The impact of treatment assignment on hospitalization rates and costs was estimated using Poisson and linear regression, respectively. There was a significantly lower cardiovascular hospitalization rate with ezetimibe compared with placebo (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.99; P=0.031), mainly attributable to fewer hospitalizations for percutaneous coronary intervention, angina, and stroke. Consequently, cardiovascular-related hospitalization costs over 7 years were $453 per patient lower with ezetimibe (95% confidence interval, -$38 to -$869; P=0.030). Although all prespecified subgroups had lower cost with ezetimibe therapy, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients aged ≥75 years, and patients at higher predicted risk for recurrent ischemic events had even greater cost offsets. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome leads to reductions in cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs, with the greatest cost offsets in high-risk patients. These cost reductions may completely offset the cost of the drug once ezetimibe becomes generic, and may lead to cost savings from the perspective of the healthcare system, if treatment with ezetimibe is targeted to high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00202878.

Economic Outcomes of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 1-Year Results From the ABSORB III Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: The ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown. METHODS: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees). RESULTS: Initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906).

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. RESULTS: Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. STANDARDS: With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Health Status After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk: Results From the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND: In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. RESULTS: Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).