Althouse, Andrew D.

Importance Historically, women with aortic stenosis have experienced worse outcomes and inadequate recognition compared to men, being both underdiagnosed and undertreated, while also facing underrepresentation in clinical trials. Objective To determine whether women with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have better clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with a self-expanding valve (SEV) or balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Design, Setting, Participants The Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART) was a large-scale randomized clinical trial focusing on patients with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, randomized to receive SEVs or BEVs and included 716 patients treated at 83 centers in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the US from April 2021 to October 2022. This prespecified secondary analysis reports clinical and hemodynamic findings for all 621 women enrolled in SMART. Data for this report were analyzed from February to April 2024. Interventions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with an SEV or a BEV. Main Outcomes and Measures The composite coprimary clinical end point comprised death, disabling stroke, or heart failure–related rehospitalization. The coprimary valve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 12 months. Secondary end points included the incidence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Results A total of 621 women (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [6.2] years; 312 randomized to the SEV group and 309 to the BEV group) were included in the present analysis. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in the coprimary clinical end point between the SEV and BEV groups (9.4% vs 11.8%, absolute risk difference −2.3%; 95% CI −7.2 to 2.5, P = .35). However, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute risk difference, −33.4%; 95% CI, −40.4 to −26.4; P < .001). SEV implantation resulted in lower aortic valve gradients and larger effective orifice areas at 30 days and 12 months and less mild or greater aortic regurgitation at 12 months compared to BEV implantation. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower with SEVs, regardless of the definition used and adjustment for body mass index. Use of SEVs was associated with better quality of life outcomes as assessed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 ordinal quality of life measure. Conclusions and Relevance Among women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the use of SEVs, compared to BEVs, resulted in similar clinical outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, including a lower risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and better 12-month quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04722250

Statistical analyses are a crucial component of the biomedical research process and are necessary to draw inferences from biomedical research data. The application of sound statistical methodology is a prerequisite for publication in the American Heart Association (AHA) journal portfolio. The objective of this document is to summarize key aspects of statistical reporting that might be most relevant to the authors, reviewers, and readership of AHA journals. The AHA Scientific Publication Committee convened a task force to inventory existing statistical standards for publication in biomedical journals and to identify approaches suitable for the AHA journal portfolio. The experts on the task force were selected by the AHA Scientific Publication Committee, who identified 12 key topics that serve as the section headers for this document. For each topic, the members of the writing group identified relevant references and evaluated them as a resource to make the standards summarized herein. Each section was independently reviewed by an expert reviewer who was not part of the task force. Expert reviewers were also permitted to comment on other sections if they chose. Differences of opinion were adjudicated by consensus. The standards presented in this report are intended to serve as a guide for high-quality reporting of statistical analyses methods and results.

OBJECTIVEThe Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial demonstrated similar long-term clinical effectiveness of insulin-sensitizing (IS) versus insulin-providing (IP) treatments for type 2 diabetes on cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort with documented coronary artery disease. We evaluated the effects of randomized glycemic control strategy (IS vs. IP) on the prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSDPN (defined as Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument [MNSI] clinical examination score >2) was assessed at baseline and yearly for 4 years. DPN prevalence and incidence were compared by intention-to-treat modeling by logistic generalized estimating equation models for prevalence and Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models for incidence rates.RESULTSResults are reported for 2,159 BARI 2D participants (70% males) with valid baseline and at least one follow-up MNSI score (mean age 62 ± 9 years, mean HbA1c 7.7 ± 1.6%, diabetes duration 10 ± 9 years). There were no differences in the prevalence of DPN between the IS and the IP groups throughout the 4 years of follow-up. In 1,075 BARI 2D participants with no DPN at baseline, the 4-year cumulative incidence rate of DPN was significantly lower in the IS (66%) than in the IP (72%) strategy group (P = 0.02), which remained significant after adjusting for the in-trial HbA1c (P = 0.04). In subgroup analyses, IS strategy had a greater benefit in men (hazard ratio 0.75 [99% CI 0.58–0.99], P < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with type 2 diabetes followed for up to 4 years during BARI 2D, a glycemic control therapy with IS significantly reduced the incidence of DPN compared with IP therapy and may add further benefit for men.