Same evidence different recommendations: a methodological assessment of transatlantic guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify methodological variations leading to varied recommendations between the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) valvular heart disease guidelines and to suggest foundational steps towards standardizing guideline development. METHODS: An in-depth analysis was conducted to evaluate the methodologies used in developing the transatlantic guidelines for managing valvular heart disease. The evaluation was benchmarked against the standards proposed by the Institute of Medicine. RESULTS: Substantial discrepancies were noted in the methodologies utilized in development processes, including Writing Committee composition, evidence evaluation, conflict of interest management and voting processes. Furthermore, despite their mutual differences, both methodologies demonstrate notable deviations from the Institute of Medicine standards in several essential areas, including literature review and evidence grading. These dual variances likely influenced divergent treatment recommendations. For example, the ESC/EACTS recommends transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for patients with chronic severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for mitral valve surgery, while the ACC/AHA recommends transcatheter edge-to-edge repair based on anatomy, regardless of surgical risk. ESC/EACTS guidelines recommend a mechanical aortic prosthesis for patients under 60, while ACC/AHA guidelines recommend it for patients under 50. Notably, the ACC/AHA and ESC/EACTS guidelines have differing age cut-offs for surgical over transcatheter aortic valve replacement (<65 and <75 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Variations in methodologies for developing clinical practice guidelines have resulted in different treatment recommendations that may significantly impact global practice patterns. Standardization of essential processes is vital to increase the uniformity and credibility of clinical practice guidelines, ultimately improving healthcare quality, reducing variability and enhancing trust in modern medicine.

Industry Payments to US Physicians by Specialty and Product Type.

This study examines the distribution of payments within and across specialties and the medical products associated with the largest total payments.

What Do We Really Know About the Effect of Prolonged Heart Rhythm Monitoring After Stroke?

The bulk of the current knowledge on atrial fibrillation (AF)-associated stroke risk and benefit of oral anticoagulation derives from studies on patients with clinically diagnosed AF. Subclinical AF (SCAF), defined as AF discovered during the interrogation of prolonged heart monitoring, is often asymptomatic and short-lasting, is associated with increased stroke risk compared with sinus rhythm, and may progress to clinical AF. Despite the extensive screening for and treatment of SCAF, especially in secondary stroke prevention, the net benefit of this practice is not established. Recent studies of SCAF have provided new insights: (1) SCAF is extremely common and may sometimes indicate physiological findings, (2) the stroke risk associated with SCAF is lower than that of clinically detected AF, and (3) any benefit on stroke risk may be countered by increased bleeding risk (no net benefit). How should we interpret the latest knowledge in the setting of poststroke AF screening and prevention?

ß blockers switched to first-line therapy in hypertension.

In their recent guidelines, the European Society of Hypertension upgraded ß blockers, putting them on equal footing with thiazide diuretics, renin-angiotensin system blockers (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers), and calcium channel blockers. The reason offered for upgrading ß blockers was the observation that they are often used for many other clinical conditions commonly encountered with hypertension. This upgrade would allow for the treatment of two conditions with a single drug (a so-called twofer). In most current national and international hypertension guidelines, ß blockers are only considered to be an alternative when there are specific indications. Compared with the other first-line antihypertensive drug classes, ß blockers are significantly less effective in preventing stroke and cardiovascular mortality. To relegate ß blockers to an inferiority status as previous guidelines have done was based on the evidence in aggregate, and still stands. No new evidence supports the switch of ß blockers back to first-line therapy. We are concerned that this move might lead to widespread harm because of inferior stroke protection.

Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Recent European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines highlighted some concerns about the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. Quantification of these biases has not been previously performed. Objective: To assess whether randomization protects RCTs comparing TAVI and SAVR from biases other than nonrandom allocation. Data Sources: A systematic review of the literature between January 1, 2007, and June 6, 2022, on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Specialist websites were also checked for unpublished data. Study Selection: The study included RCTs with random allocation to TAVI or SAVR with a maximum 5-year follow-up. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was performed by 2 independent investigators following the PRISMA guidelines. A random-effects meta-analysis was used for quantifying pooled rates and differential rates between treatments of deviation from random assigned treatment (DAT), loss to follow-up, and receipt of additional treatments. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportion of DAT, loss to follow-up, and patients who were provided additional treatments and myocardial revascularization, together with their ratio between treatments. The measures were the pooled overall proportion of the primary outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) in the TAVI vs SAVR groups. Results: The search identified 8 eligible trials including 8849 participants randomly assigned to undergo TAVI (n = 4458) or SAVR (n = 4391). The pooled proportion of DAT among the sample was 4.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-5.6%), favoring TAVI (pooled RR vs SAVR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36; P < .001). The pooled proportion of loss to follow-up was 4.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-7.3%). Meta-regression showed a significant association between the proportion of participants lost to follow-up and follow-up time (slope, 0.042; 95% CI, 0.017-0.066; P < .001). There was an imbalance of loss to follow-up favoring TAVI (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55; P < .001). The pooled proportion of patients who had additional procedures was 10.4% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%): 4.6% (95% CI, 1.5%-9.3%) in the TAVI group and 16.5% (95% CI, 7.5%-28.1%) in the SAVR group (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.50; P < .001). The imbalance between groups also favored TAVI for additional myocardial revascularization (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.68; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, in RCTs comparing TAVI vs SAVR, there are substantial proportions of DAT, loss to follow-up, and additional procedures together with systematic selective imbalance in the same direction characterized by significantly lower proportions of patients undergoing TAVI that might affect internal validity.

Experiences Implementing a Suite of Decision Aids for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Qualitative Insights From the DECIDE-ICD Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is gaining importance in cardiology, including Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement policies requiring documented SDM for patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The DECIDE-ICD Trial (Decision Support Intervention for Patients offered implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators) assessed the implementation and effectiveness of patient decision aids (DAs) using a stepped-wedge design at 7 sites. The purpose of this subanalysis was to qualitatively describe electrophysiology clinicians' experience implementing and using the DAs. METHODS: This included semi-structured individual interviews with electrophysiology clinicians at participating sites across the US, at least 6 months following conversion into the implementation phase of the trial (from June 2020 through February 2022). The interview guide was structured according to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [implementation evaluation model]) framework, assessing clinician experiences, which can impact implementation domains, and was qualitatively assessed using a mixed inductive/deductive method. RESULTS: We completed 22 interviews post-implementation across all 7 sites. Participants included both physicians (n=16) and other clinicians who counsel patients regarding treatment options (n=6). While perception of SDM and the DA were positive, participants highlighted reasons for uneven delivery of DAs to appropriate patients. The CMS mandate for SDM was not universally viewed as associating with patients receiving DA's, but rather (1) logistics of DA delivery, (2) perceived effectiveness in improving patient decision-making, and (3) match of DA content to current patient populations. Remaining tensions include the specific trial data used in DAs and reconciling timing of delivery with when patients are actively making decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians charged with delivering DAs to patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators were generally supportive of the tenets of SDM, and of the DA tools themselves, but noted several opportunities to improve the reach and continued use of them in routine care. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03374891.

Resource Utilization Following Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography and Stress Echocardiography in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Chest Pain.

This study aimed to assess long-term resource utilization and outcomes in patients with acute chest pain who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and stress echocardiography (SE). This was a retrospective, propensity-matched analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. There were 3,816 patients matched 1:1 who received either CCTA (n = 1,908) or SE (n = 1,908). Patients were seen in the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011 with a primary diagnosis of chest pain and received either CCTA or SE within 72 hours as the first noninvasive test and maintained continuous enrollment in the database from the time of the ED encounter through December 31, 2014. All individual patient data were censored at 3 years. Compared with SE, CCTA was associated with higher odds of downstream cardiac catheterization (9.9% vs 7.7%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.63), future noninvasive testing (27.7% vs 22.3%, AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42), and return ED visits or hospitalization for chest pain at 3 years (33.1% vs 24.2%, AOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59). There were no statistically significant differences in new statin use (15.5% vs 14.9%, AOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28), coronary revascularization (2.7% vs 2.2%, AOR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.01) or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0.9%, AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.99). In conclusion, in patients who present to the ED with chest pain, CCTA is associated with increased downstream resource utilization compared with SE with no differences in long-term cardiovascular outcomes.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Adaptive Trials in Cardiology: Some Considerations and Examples.

Adaptive trials hold great promise to enhance the evidence base supporting medical interventions. In this review, we will describe the basic principles of an adaptive trial and the different types of adaptive trials, show examples of adaptive trials, and conclude with the advantages and challenges of different types of adaptive trials. While regulatory bodies have expressed a desire to see more adaptive trials, resistance in the community remains. We hope that this review helps to build greater acceptance of the concept of adaptive trial design.