Search

Importance: Although endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is recommended by guidelines to improve functional recovery, thus far there are insufficient data on its association with mortality., Objective: To identify guideline-relevant trials of EVT vs medical therapy reporting 90-day mortality and perform a meta-analysis., Data Sources: All randomized clinical trials cited for recommendations on EVT vs medical therapy in the latest 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines., Study Selection: Ten American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guideline-relevant randomized clinical trials of EVT vs medical therapy were selected for inclusion. Two EVT trials were excluded owing to infrequent use of EVT., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were abstracted by 2 independent investigators and double-checked by 4 others. Singular study data were integrated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and a random-effects model to compute summary statistics of risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs., Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of 90-day mortality and 90-day intracranial hemorrhage was analyzed; sensitivity analyses were performed in early-window EVT trials (which included patients from the onset of symptoms onward) vs late-window EVT trials (which included patients from 6 hours after onset of symptoms onward)., Results: In 10 trials with 2313 patients, EVT significantly reduced the risk for 90-day mortality by 3.7% compared with medical therapy (15.0% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). Trends were similar in early-window (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; P = .06) and late-window trials only (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41-1.40; P = .38). There was no difference in the risk for intracranial hemorrhage in EVT vs medical therapy (4.2% vs 4.0%; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.72; P = .65). Limitations of the studies include trial protocol heterogeneity and bias originating from prematurely terminated trials., Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis of all evidence on EVT cited in the 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines shows significant benefits for survival during the first 90 days after acute ischemic stroke compared with medical therapy alone.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with cytokine release in critical disease states. Thus, cytokine absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic option. This study investigated the influence of cytokine absorption on mortality in old critical patients with COVID-19 and renal failure admitted to intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a prospective international observation study (the COVIP study) analysed ICU patients≥70 years with COVID-19. Data on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, clinical frailty scale (CFS), ICU therapy details including renal replacement therapy (RRT) with/without cytokine absorption were collected. The cytokine absorption group was compared to patients receiving RRT without cytokine absorption RESULTS: Among 3927 patients, 503 received RRT; among them 47 patients were treated with cytokine absorption. Mortality rates were high in both groups with increased rates in the cytokine group for ICU mortality and 30-day mortality, but not for 3-month mortality. Logistic regression analysis indicated that SOFA-score, but not cytokine absorption was associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Critical COVID-19 patients with renal failure treated with cytokine absorption showed higher short term mortality rates when compared to patients with renal replacement therapy alone. Mortality is associated with disease severity, but not cytokine absorption in a multivariate analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Treatment effects from the large cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of new antidiabetic drugs are almost exclusively communicated as hazard ratios, although reporting guidelines recommend to report treatment effects also on an absolute scale, e.g. as numbers needed to treat (NNT). We aimed to analyse NNTs in CVOTs comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, or sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo. Methods: We digitalized individual time-to-event information for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality from 19 CVOTs that compared DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors to placebo. We estimated Weibull models for each trial and outcome and derived monthly NNTs. NNTs were summarized across all trials and within drug classes by random effects meta-analysis methods. Results: Treatment effects in the CVOTs appear smaller if they are reported as NNTs: Overall, 100 (95%-CI: 60, 303) patients have to be treated for 29 months (the median follow-up time across all trials) to avoid a single event of the primary outcome, and 128 (95%-CI: 85, 265) patients have to be treated for 39 months to avoid a single death. NNT time courses are very similar for GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, whereas treatment effects with DPP-4 inhibitors are smaller. Conclusions: We found that the respective treatment effects look less impressive when communicated on an absolute scale, as numbers needed to treat. For a valid overall picture of the benefit of new antidiabetic drugs, trial authors should also report treatment effects on an absolute scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In-depth knowledge about potential predictors of mortality in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is still warranted. Currently used risk stratification models for TAVR often fail to reach a holistic approach. We, therefore, aimed to create a new staged risk model for 1-year mortality including several new categories including (a) AS-entities (b) cardiopulmonary hemodynamics (c) comorbidities, and (d) different access routes. Methods: 737 transfemoral (TF) TAVR (84.3%) and 137 transapical (TA) TAVR (15.7%) patients were included. Predictors of 1-year mortality were assessed according to the aforementioned categories. Results: Over-all 1-year mortality (n = 100, 11.4%) was significantly higher in the TA TAVR group (TF vs. TA TAVR: 10.0% vs. 18.9 %; p = 0.0050*). By multivariate cox-regression analysis, a three-staged model was created in patients with fulfilled categories (TF TAVR: n = 655, 88,9%; TA TAVR: n = 117, 85.4%). Patients in "stage 2" showed 1.7-fold (HR 1.67; CI 1.07–2.60; p = 0.024*) and patients in "stage 3" 3.5-fold (HR 3.45; CI 1.97–6.05; p < 0.0001*) enhanced risk to die within 1 year. Mortality increased with every stage and reached the highest rates of 42.5% in "stage 3" (plogrank < 0.0001*), even when old- and new-generation devices (plogrank = n.s) were sub-specified. Conclusions: This new staged mortality risk model had incremental value for prediction of 1-year mortality after TAVR independently from the TAVR-era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients. A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, p GRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; p ACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; p GRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (p GRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, p GRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); p GRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models. In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model. • External validation study of updated NCDR, GRACE and ACTION risk models for mortality risk prediction in German ACS patients. • NCDR and -to a lesser extent- ACTION risk models discriminated risk for in-hospital mortality better than GRACE models. • ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all risk models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]