Javois, Alexander J.

AbstractObjectiveWe compared 5‐year outcomes of transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) replacement with the Melody TPV in the post‐approval study (PAS) and the investigational device exemption (IDE) trial.BackgroundAs a condition of approval of the Melody TPV after the IDE trial, the Food and Drug Administration required that a PAS be conducted to evaluate outcomes of TPV replacement in a “real‐world” environment. The 5‐year outcomes of the PAS have not been published, and the IDE and PAS trials have not been compared.MethodsThe cohorts comprised all patients catheterized and implanted at 5 IDE sites and 10 PAS sites. Differences in trial protocols were detailed. Time‐related outcomes and valve‐related adverse events were compared between the two trials with Kaplan–Meier curves and log‐rank testing.Results167 patients (median age, 19 years) were catheterized and 150 underwent TPV replacement in the IDE trial; 121 were catheterized (median age, 17 years) and 100 implanted in the PAS. Freedom from hemodynamic dysfunction (p = .61) or any reintervention (p = .74) over time did not differ between trials. Freedom from stent fracture (p = .003) and transcatheter reintervention (p = .010) were longer in PAS, whereas freedom from explant (p = .020) and TPV endocarditis (p = .007) were shorter. Clinically important adverse events (AEs) were reported in 14% of PAS and 7.2% of IDE patients (p = .056); the incidence of any particular event was low in both.ConclusionsHemodynamic and time‐related outcomes in the PAS and IDE trials were generally similar, confirming the effectiveness of the Melody TPV with real‐world providers. There were few significant complications and limited power to identify important differences in AEs. The lack of major differences in outcomes between the two studies questions the usefulness of mandated costly post‐approval studies as part of the regulatory process for Class III medical devices.

ObjectivesWe sought to develop a scoring system that predicts the risk of serious adverse events (SAE's) for individual pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures.BackgroundSystematic assessment of risk of SAE in pediatric catheterization can be challenging in view of a wide variation in procedure and patient complexity as well as rapidly evolving technology.MethodsA 10 component scoring system was originally developed based on expert consensus and review of the existing literature. Data from an international multi‐institutional catheterization registry (CCISC) between 2008 and 2013 were used to validate this scoring system. In addition we used multivariate methods to further refine the original risk score to improve its predictive power of SAE's. Results: Univariate analysis confirmed the strong correlation of each of the 10 components of the original risk score with SAE attributed to a pediatric cardiac catheterization (P < 0.001 for all variables). Multivariate analysis resulted in a modified risk score (CRISP) that corresponds to an increase in value of area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) from 0.715 to 0.741.ConclusionThe CRISP score predicts risk of occurrence of an SAE for individual patients undergoing pediatric cardiac catheterization procedures. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.