Holmes, David R.

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug‐eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12‐months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open‐label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12‐month incidence of target‐vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost‐effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower‐than‐anticipated target‐vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.

Background— The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) led to renewed interest in balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). We sought to assess contemporary trends in BAV utilization and their outcomes. Methods and Results— The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent BAV between 2004 and 2013. In-hospital morbidity and mortality, and predictors of death after BAV were assessed. Outcomes of propensity-matched groups of patients undergoing elective BAV or TAVR were evaluated. BAV utilization increased from 707 cases in 2004 to 3715 cases in 2013 (national estimates). Procedural and in-hospital mortality were 1.4% and 8.5%, respectively. Vascular complications occurred in 7.0% of cases, blood transfusion in 17.5%, clinical stroke in 1.8%, and pacemaker implantation in 3.0%. The strongest predictors of in-hospital death were cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% confidence interval, 4.19–8.61; P <0.001), need for left ventricular assist device (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.25–5.36; P <0.001), coagulopathy (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–3.18; P <0.001), and low institutional volume of BAV (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–2.37; P =0.03). In propensity-matched patients undergoing elective BAV or TAVR, rates of in-hospital mortality (2.9% versus 3.5%; P =0.60), clinical stroke (1.6% versus 3.1%; P =0.10), and vascular complications (8.2% versus 10.9%; P =0.14) were similar. However, BAV was associated with lower rates of pacemaker implantation (2.9% versus 8.0%; P <0.001) and blood transfusion (12.8% versus 22.9%; P <0.001). Conclusions— In a contemporary national registry, BAV is associated with significant morbidity and mortality that are similar to TAVR. With the substantial increase in BAV utilization and the continuous improvement in TAVR outcomes, these data have important implications to aid clinicians in the selection of appropriate BAV candidates.

Leaflet immobility and valve thrombosis have been reported with both transcatheter and surgical aortic valve bioprostheses. The relationships between these abnormalities and their incidence, time course, clinical significance, predisposing factors, optimal imaging modality, and current therapeutic options remain uncertain but are rapidly evolving. Four-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging has been determined to have the highest sensitivity in studies evaluating leaflet immobility and valve thrombosis. Echocardiography is also used during surveillance, but it appears to be less sensitive. The definitive diagnosis of valve thrombosis is based on a combination of diagnostic 4-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging findings, resolution of imaging abnormalities, and elevated transcatheter gradients with anticoagulation or surgical or pathological confirmation. Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical significance of the findings is the basis of 2 US Food and Drug Administration–approved studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement with a subset undergoing surveillance 4-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging. Given the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, including potentially lower-risk patients, the resolution of these uncertainties is critical.

284 Background: MM is an uncommon cancer with annual incidence of only 27,000 cases in the US. Our study determined the extent to which the number of MM patients treated annually in a treatment facility affected all-cause mortality. Methods: We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to identify adult patients with MM diagnosed from 2003-2011. NCDB is sourced from over 1,500 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer registries representing 70% of cancer cases in the US. We classified treatment facilities by quartiles based on facility volume (mean patients/year): Quartile 1 (Q1: < 3.6), Quartile 2 (Q2: 3.6-6.1), Quartile 3 (Q3: 6.1-10.3) and Quartile 4 (Q4: > 10.3). We used hot deck imputation to account for missing data, Cox regression to analyze the association between facility volume and time-to-death, and random intercepts to adjust for multiple patients per facility. Results: There were 94,722 MM patients cared for at 1,333 facilities. Most patients (73.5%) were diagnosed and treated in the same facility. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years and 54.7% were males. The median annual facility volume was 6.1 patients/year (IQR: 3.6-10.3; range: 0.2-109.9). The distribution of patients according to facility volume was Q1 (5.2%), Q2 (12.6%), Q3 (21.9%) and Q4 (60.3%). The unadjusted median overall survival by facility volume was: Q1: 26.9 months, Q2: 29.1 months, Q3: 31.9 months and Q4: 49.1 months. After multivariable analysis adjusting for demographic (sex, age, race, ethnicity), socioeconomic (income, education, insurance type), geographic (area of residence, treatment facility location), co-morbidity (Charlson-Deyo score), and disease-specific (year of diagnosis) factors, we show that facility volume remains an independent predictor of all-cause mortality. Compared to patients treated at Q4 facilities, patients treated at lower quartile facilities had a higher risk of death (Q3 HR: 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]; Q2: 1.21 [1.17-1.26]; Q1: 1.27 [1.22-1.34]). We observed an inverse volume-outcome relationship up to an annual facility volume of approximately 60 patients. Conclusions: MM patients treated at higher volume facilities had lower risk of mortality compared to those treated at lower volume facilities.

Purpose To determine the association between the number of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated annually at a treatment facility (volume) and all-cause mortality (outcome). Methods Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients diagnosed with MM between 2003 and 2011. We classified the facilities by quartiles (Q; mean patients with MM treated per year): Q1: < 3.6; Q2: 3.6 to 6.1, Q3: 6.1 to 10.3, and Q4: > 10.3. We used random intercepts to account for clustering of patients within facilities and Cox regression to determine the volume-outcome relationship, adjusting for demographic (sex, age, race, ethnicity), socioeconomic (income, education, insurance type), geographic (area of residence, treatment facility location, travel distance), and comorbid (Charlson-Deyo score) factors and year of diagnosis. Results There were 94,722 patients with MM treated at 1,333 facilities. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years, and 54.7% were men. The median annual facility volume was 6.1 patients per year (range, 0.2 to 109.9). The distribution of patients according to facility volume was: Q1: 5.2%, Q2: 12.6%, Q3: 21.9%, and Q4: 60.3%. The unadjusted median overall survival by facility volume was: Q1: 26.9 months, Q2: 29.1 months, Q3: 31.9 months, and Q4: 49.1 months ( P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed that facility volume was independently associated with all-cause mortality. Compared with patients treated at Q4 facilities, patients treated at lower-quartile facilities had a higher risk of death (Q3 hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.16]; Q2 HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.21]; Q1 HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.17 to 1.28]). Conclusion Patients who were treated for MM at higher-volume facilities had a lower risk of mortality compared with those who were treated at lower-volume facilities.