Search

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide essential evidence to inform practice, but the many necessary steps result in lengthy times to initiation, which is problematic in the case of rapidly emerging infections such as COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the start-up timelines for the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) RCT. Methods: We surveyed hospitals participating in CATCO and ethics submission sites using a structured data abstraction form. We measured durations from protocol receipt to site activation and to first patient enrolment, as well as durations of administrative processes, including research ethics board (REB) approval, contract execution and lead times between approvals to site activation. Results: All 48 hospitals (26 academic, 22 community) and 4 ethics submission sites responded. The median time from protocol receipt to trial initiation was 111 days (interquartile range [IQR] 39-189 d, range 15-412 d). The median time between protocol receipt and REB submission was 41 days (IQR 10-56 d, range 4-195 d), from REB submission to approval, 4.5 days (IQR 1-12 d, range 0-169 d), from REB approval to site activation, 35 days (IQR 22-103 d, range 0-169 d), from protocol receipt to contract submission, 42 days (IQR 20-51 d, range 4-237 d), from contract submission to full contract execution, 24 days (IQR 15-58 d, range 5-164 d) and from contract execution to site activation, 10 days (IQR 6-27 ). Processes took longer in community hospitals than in academic hospitals. Interpretation: The time required to initiate RCTs in Canada was lengthy and varied among sites. Adoption of template clinical trial agreements, greater harmonization or central coordination of ethics submissions, and long-term funding of platform trials that engage academic and community hospitals are potential solutions to improve trial start-up efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) cause significant morbidity and mortality in critically ill children but treatment duration is understudied. We describe the durations of antimicrobial treatment that critically ill children receive and explore factors associated with treatment duration.Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study in six pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) across Canada. Associations between treatment duration and patient-, infection- and pathogen-related characteristics were explored using multivariable regression analyses.Results: Among 187 critically ill children with BSIs, the median duration of antimicrobial treatment was 15 (IQR 11-25) days. Median treatment durations were longer than two weeks for all subjects with known sources of infection: catheter-related 16 (IQR 11-24), respiratory 15 (IQR 11-26), intra-abdominal 20 (IQR 14-26), skin/soft tissue 17 (IQR 15-33), urinary 17 (IQR 15-35), central nervous system 33 (IQR 15-46) and other sources 29.5 (IQR 15-55) days. When sources of infection were unclear, the median duration was 13 (IQR 10-16) days. Treatment durations varied widely within and across PICUs. In multivariable linear regression, longer treatment durations were associated with severity of illness (+ 0.4 days longer [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.1 to 0.7, p = 0.007] per unit increase in PRISM-IV) and central nervous system infection (+ 17 days [95% CI, 6.7 to 27.4], p = 0.001). Age and pathogen type were not associated with treatment duration.Conclusions: Most critically ill children with BSIs received at least two weeks of antimicrobial treatment. Further study is needed to determine whether shorter duration therapy would be effective for selected critically ill children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The optimum duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients with bacteremia is unknown. Our objectives were to determine duration of antimicrobial treatment provided to patients who have bacteremia in ICUs, to assess pathogen/patient factors related to treatment duration, and to assess the relationship between treatment duration and survival.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Settings: Fourteen ICUs across Canada.Patients: Patients with bacteremia and were present in the ICU at the time culture reported positive.Interventions: Duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients who had bacteremia in ICU.Measurements and Main Results: Among 1,202 ICU patients with bacteremia, the median duration of treatment was 14 days, but with wide variability (interquartile range, 9-17.5). Most patient characteristics were not associated with treatment duration. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the only pathogens associated with shorter treatment (odds ratio, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.51-5.26). The urinary tract was the only source of infection associated with a trend toward lower likelihood of shorter treatment (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08); an unknown source of infection was associated with a greater likelihood of shorter treatment (odds ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.17-3.91). The association of treatment duration and survival was unstable when analyzed based on timing of death.Conclusions: Critically ill patients who have bacteremia typically receive long courses of antimicrobials. Most patient/pathogen characteristics are not associated with treatment duration; survivor bias precludes a valid assessment of the association between treatment duration and survival. A definitive randomized controlled trial is needed to compare shorter versus longer antimicrobial treatment in patients who have bacteremia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study that examined biostratigraphic data from the lower Jurassic formation in the subsurface of west-central Alberta and their stratigraphic implications. Lower Jurassic stratigraphic framework of the western Canada sedimentary basin; Study area and sample locations; Stratigraphic relationships among lower Fernie formation units and subsurface to surface correlations.

Background: Frailty is a geriatric syndrome that diminishes the potential for functional recovery after a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedure; however, its integration in clinical practice has been limited by a lack of consensus on how to measure it.Objectives: This study sought to compare the incremental predictive value of 7 different frailty scales to predict poor outcomes following TAVR or SAVR.Methods: A prospective cohort of older adults undergoing TAVR or SAVR was assembled at 14 centers in 3 countries from 2012 to 2016. The following frailty scales were compared: Fried, Fried+, Rockwood, Short Physical Performance Battery, Bern, Columbia, and the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT). Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and disability 1 year after the procedure.Results: The cohort was composed of 1,020 patients with a median age of 82 years. Depending on the scale used, the prevalence of frailty ranged from 26% to 68%. Frailty as measured by the EFT was the strongest predictor of death at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.54 to 5.45) with a C-statistic improvement of 0.071 (p < 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement of 0.067 (p < 0.001). Moreover, the EFT was the strongest predictor of worsening disability at 1 year (adjusted OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.57 to 2.87) and death at 30 days (adjusted OR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.73 to 6.26).Conclusions: Frailty is a risk factor for death and disability following TAVR and SAVR. A brief 4-item scale encompassing lower-extremity weakness, cognitive impairment, anemia, and hypoalbuminemia outperformed other frailty scales and is recommended for use in this setting. (Frailty Assessment Before Cardiac Surgery & Transcatheter Interventions; NCT01845207). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation., Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking., Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence., Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide essential evidence to inform practice, but the many necessary steps result in lengthy times to initiation, which is problematic in the case of rapidly emerging infections such as COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the start-up timelines for the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) RCT., Methods: We surveyed hospitals participating in CATCO and ethics submission sites using a structured data abstraction form. We measured durations from protocol receipt to site activation and to first patient enrolment, as well as durations of administrative processes, including research ethics board (REB) approval, contract execution and lead times between approvals to site activation., Results: All 48 hospitals (26 academic, 22 community) and 4 ethics submission sites responded. The median time from protocol receipt to trial initiation was 111 days (interquartile range [IQR] 39-189 d, range 15-412 d). The median time between protocol receipt and REB submission was 41 days (IQR 10-56 d, range 4-195 d), from REB submission to approval, 4.5 days (IQR 1-12 d, range 0-169 d), from REB approval to site activation, 35 days (IQR 22-103 d, range 0-169 d), from protocol receipt to contract submission, 42 days (IQR 20-51 d, range 4-237 d), from contract submission to full contract execution, 24 days (IQR 15-58 d, range 5-164 d) and from contract execution to site activation, 10 days (IQR 6-27 d, range 0-216 d). Processes took longer in community hospitals than in academic hospitals., Interpretation: The time required to initiate RCTs in Canada was lengthy and varied among sites. Adoption of template clinical trial agreements, greater harmonization or central coordination of ethics submissions, and long-term funding of platform trials that engage academic and community hospitals are potential solutions to improve trial start-up efficiency., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jennifer Tsang reports a Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation grant to her institution, outside the submitted work. She is cochair of the Canadian Community ICU Research Network (CCIRNet) and vice-chair of the Quest Community Health Centre board of directors. Alexandra Binnie reports a Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation grant and a Mohawk Medbuy grant to her institution, outside the submitted work. She is cochair of CCIRNet. Srinivas Murthy reports a grant from the Health Research Foundation, Innovative Medicines Canada, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Introduction: The BALANCE study is a randomised clinical trial (3626 participants) designed to assess the non-inferiority of 7 days (short-course) antibiotic therapy compared with 14 days of therapy for bacteraemia using the pragmatic endpoint of 90-day survival. Based on pilot study data, approximately 30% of enrolees will have a urinary tract infection (UTI) as the source of bacteraemia., Methods and Analysis: We aim to assess the non-inferiority of short-course antibiotic therapy for patients with bacteraemia UTIs.Participating sites in four countries will be invited to join this substudy. All participants of this substudy will be enrolled in the main BALANCE study. The intervention will be assigned and treatment administered as specified in the main protocol.We will include participants in this substudy if the probable source of their infection is a UTI, as judged by the site principal investigator, and they have a urine microscopy and culture indicative of a UTI. Participants will be excluded if they have an ileal loop, vesicoureteric reflux or suspected or confirmed prostatitis.The primary outcome is the absence of a positive culture on a test-of-cure urine sample collected 6-12 days after cessation of antimicrobials, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Secondary outcomes include the clinical resolution of infection symptoms at test-of-cure., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved in conjunction with the main BALANCE study through the relevant ethics review process at each participating site. We will disseminate the results through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Association for Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Canada Clinical Research Network (AMMI Canada CRN) and other collaborators., Universal Trial Number: U1111-1256-0874., Main Balance Trial Registration: NCT03005145., Trial Registration Number: Australian Clinical Trial Register: ACTRN12620001108909., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We used modified contingent valuation methodology to determine how noninferiority margin sizes influence clinicians' willingness to accept clinical trial results that compare mortality in critically ill children., Methods: We surveyed pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and randomized respondents to review 1 of 9 mock abstracts describing a noninferiority trial of bacteremic critically ill children assigned to 7 or 14 d of antibiotics. Each scenario showed higher mortality in the 7-d group but met noninferiority criterion. We explored how noninferiority margins and baseline mortality rates influenced respondent acceptance of results., Results: There were 106 survey respondents: 65 (61%) critical care clinicians, 28 (26%) infectious diseases physicians, and 13 (12%) pharmacists. When noninferiority margins were 5% and 10%, 73% (24/33) and 79% (27/33) respondents would accept shorter treatment, compared with 44% (17/39) when the margin was 20% ( P = 0.003). Logistic regression adjusted for baseline mortality showed 5% and 10% noninferiority margins were more likely to be associated with acceptance of shorter treatment compared with 20% margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-9.6, P = 0.013; OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.8-14.6, P = 0.002). Baseline mortality was not a significant predictor of acceptance of shorter treatment., Conclusions: Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment when noninferiority margins are ≤10%. However, nearly half of respondents who reviewed abstracts with 20% margins were still willing to accept shorter treatment. This is a novel application of contingent valuation methodology to elicit acceptance of research results among end users of the medical literature., Highlights: Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment durations based on noninferior mortality results when the noninferiority margin is 5% or 10% than if the margin is 20%.However, nearly half of clinicians would still accept shorter-duration treatment as noninferior with margins of 20%.Baseline mortality does not independently predict acceptance of shorter-duration treatment.Contingent valuation is a novel approach to elicit the acceptance of research design parameters from the perspective of endusers of the medical literature.

Background: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems., Methods: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation., Results: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir ( n = 634) or standard of care ( n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care ( p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups., Interpretation: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Alexandra Binnie reports receiving research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation. Sergio Borgia reports receiving honoraria from Gilead Sciences and GSK. Yiorgos Alexandros Cavayas reports receiving a grant from CIHR. Matthew Cheng reports receiving grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and from CIHR, during the conduct of the study (payments made to the institution). Dr. Cheng also reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; and from Nplex Biosciences and GEn1E lifesciences (in the form of stock options for being a member of the scientific advisory board) outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheng co-founded Kanvas Biosicences and owns equity in the company, and reports 3 patents pending. John Conly reports receiving grants from CIHR, Pfizer, the World Health Organization (WHO), Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Calgary, and the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Conly also reports receiving support to attend the Think Tank Meeting 2019. Dr. Conly is a member and Chair of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Research and Development Expert Group for COVID-19, a member of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) Ad-hoc COVID-19 IPC Guidance Development Group, and a member of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. Madeleine Durand reports receiving grants from CIHR and the Fonds Recherche du Québec–Santé (FRQS). Rob Fowler reports receiving a grant from CIHR for the CATCO trial and is the H. Barrie Fairley Professor of Critical Care at the University Health Network. Michael Fralick reports receiving multiple grants from CIHR and support from grants from the Canadian military for clinical trials to identify treatments for COVID-19 (payments made to institution). Dr. Fralick is a paid consultant for a start-up company called Proof DiagnosticsDx, which has created a point-of-care testing device using CRISPR for COVID-19. Holly Hoang reports receiving payment from CATCO Sunnybrook to fund research assistant (payment made to institution) and a research grant from Covenant Health Research Centre. Marina Klein reports receiving grants from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, Merck and AbbVie for investigator-initiated studies, and consulting fees from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, Merck and AbbVie, all outside the submitted work. Todd Lee reports receiving operating grants from CIHR and McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity (MI4), and research salary support from FRQS. Alexandra Lostun reports receiving per-case funding to cover the costs of enrolling patients (paid to institution, North York General Hospital). François Carrier reports receiving grants from the Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada and the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, and a grant and salary support from FRQS. Marlee McGuinty reports receiving speaking fees from Merck. Srinivas Murthy reports receiving a grant from CIHR, during the conduct of the study, and is the Health Research Foundation and Innovative Medicines Canada Chair in Pandemic Preparedness Research. Conar O’Neil reports receiving conference sponsorship from Gilead Sciences, and is a member of a Gilead Sciences advisory board. Jesse Papenburg reports receiving a grant from CIHR, during the conduct of the study, as well as research grants and contracts from AbbVie and research contracts (site investigator for clinical trial) from MedImmune, Merck and Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Papenburg has received consulting fees from Merck for an ad hoc advisory board meeting, and honoraria for presentations from Seegene, AbbVie and AstraZeneca. Dr. Papenburg is also a voting member of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Ken Kuljit S. Parhar reports receiving a CIHR project grant, Alberta Innovates grant and Alberta Health Innovation Implementation and Spread grant (all paid to institution). Seema Nair Parvathy reports receiving funding from St. Joseph’s Health Care Foundation and London Health Sciences Foundation. Moira Rushton-Marovac reports receiving advisory board honoraria from Gilead. Marina Salvadori reports being an employee of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Makeda Semret reports receiving support from the McGill MI4 for the clinical research platform through which CATCO was supported at the McGill University Health Centre. Ameeta Singh reports receiving consulting fees from Gilead for membership of an advisory board. Ranjani Somayaji reports receiving contract research funding from Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Calgary and Calgary Health Foundation, and clinical research funding from CIHR and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Dr. Somayaji also reports participation on an oncovir data monitoring safety board. Darrell Tan reports receiving grants from AbbVie (in-kind drug only) and Gilead (in-kind drug and grants to institution), and a contract between GSK and the institution for clinical trials. Alain Tremblay reports receiving contract research funding from the Sunnybrook Research Institute, and grants for COVID-19 clinical trials from the University of Calgary and Calgary Health Foundation. Alexis Turgeon reports receiving a grant from CIHR. Jason Weatherald reports receiving grants (paid to institution) and consulting fees (paid to Dr. Weatherald) from Janssen and Actelion, as well as honoraria and travel support from Janssen. Dr. Weatherald has served on advisory boards for Janssen and Acceleron (paid) and on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Université Laval (unpaid). Dr. Weatherald also reports membership of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada, and is a shareholder of Precision Lung Consultants and Diagnostics. Cedric Yansouni reports receiving grants from FRQS and consulting fees from Medicago Inc. Dr. Yansouni also reports participation in a Medicago Inc. Independent Data Monitoring Committee and held the role of scientific advisor for the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2022 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection., Methods: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay., Results: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09)., Interpretation: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital., Competing Interests: Competing interests: See the end of the article. Competing interests: Todd Lee reports salary support from Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. Deepali Kumar reports grants and personal fees from Roche. Michelle Kho reports grants from Canada Research Chairs. Matthew Cheng reports grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board) and personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board). Philippe Jouvet reports consulting for Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and grants to his institution from VitalTracer and Evolucare. Patrick Archambault is a co-investigator in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–funded Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (https://canadiancovid19ednetwork.org). No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: There has been an exponential increase in the demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our goal was to examine trends in TAVR capacity and wait-times across Canada., Methods: All TAVR cases were identified from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017. Wait-time was defined as the duration in days from the initial referral to the TAVR procedure. TAVR capacity was defined as the number of TAVR procedures per million population/province/fiscal year. We performed multivariable multilevel Cox proportional hazards modelling of the time to TAVR as the dependant variable and the effect of provinces as random effects. We quantified the variation in wait-times among provinces using the median hazard ratio., Results: We identified a total of 4906 TAVR procedures across 9 provinces. Despite a year over year increase in overall capacity, there was a greater than 3-fold difference in capacity between provinces. Crude median wait-times increased over time in all provinces, with marked variation from 71.5 days in Newfoundland to 190.5 and 203 days in Manitoba and Alberta, respectively. This suggests increasing demand outpaced the growth in capacity. We found a median hazard ratio of 1.62, indicating that in half of the possible pairwise comparisons, the time to TAVR for identical patients was at least 62% longer between different provinces., Conclusion: We found substantial geographic inequity in TAVR access. This calls for policy makers, clinicians, and administrators across Canada to address this inequity through revaluation of provincial funding mechanisms, as well as implementation of efficient care pathways., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to prospectively determine the safety and efficacy of next-day discharge using the Vancouver 3M (Multidisciplinary, Multimodality, but Minimalist) Clinical Pathway., Background: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients; however, hospital stays average at least 6 days in most trials. The Vancouver 3M Clinical Pathway is focused on next-day discharge, made possible by the use of objective screening criteria as well as streamlined peri- and post-procedural management guidelines., Methods: Patients were enrolled from 6 low-volume (<100 TAVR/year), 4 medium-volume, and 3 high-volume (>200 TAVR/year) centers in Canada and the United States. The primary outcomes were a composite of all-cause death or stroke by 30 days and the proportion of patients successfully discharged home the day following TAVR., Results: Of 1,400 screened patients, 411 were enrolled at 13 centers and received a SAPIEN XT (58.2%) or SAPIEN 3 (41.8%) valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California). In centers enrolling exclusively in the study, 55% of screened patients were enrolled. The median age was 84 years (interquartile range: 78 to 87 years) with a median STS score of 4.9% (interquartile range: 3.3% to 6.8%). Next-day discharge home was achieved in 80.1% of patients, and within 48 h in 89.5%. The composite of all-cause mortality or stroke by 30 days occurred in 2.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.7% to 5.1%), with neither component of the primary outcome affected by hospital TAVR volume (p = 0.51). Secondary outcomes at 30 days included major vascular complication 2.4% (n = 10), readmission 9.2% (n = 36), cardiac readmission 5.7% (n = 22), new permanent pacemaker 5.7% (n = 23), and >mild paravalvular regurgitation 3.8% (n = 15)., Conclusions: Adherence to the Vancouver 3M Clinical Pathway at low-, medium-, and high-volume TAVR centers allows next-day discharge home with excellent safety and efficacy outcomes., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The authors sought to determine whether frail older adults undergoing nonfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures had a higher risk of 30-day and 12-month mortality., Background: Frailty can help predict outcomes and guide therapy in older adults being considered for TAVR. Nonfemoral TAVR procedures are more invasive and impart a greater risk of adverse events, which may be less well tolerated in frail patients, compared with transfemoral TAVR procedures., Methods: This study was a post hoc analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty Assessment Before Cardiac Surgery & Transcatheter Interventions) prospective multicenter cohort that consisted of older adults undergoing TAVR from 2012 to 2017. Frailty was assessed using the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT). Endpoints of interest were 30-day and 12-month all-cause mortality. Interaction tables and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate statistical interaction on the additive and multiplicative scales., Results: The cohort consisted of 723 patients with a mean age of 84 ± 6 years, of which 556 (77%) had femoral access and 167 (23%) had nonfemoral access. In frail patients with EFT scores ≥3 (35%), nonfemoral access was associated with increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48 to 10.31); whereas in nonfrail patients with EFT scores <3 (65%), nonfemoral access had no effect (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.34 to 4.94). There was statistical evidence of interaction between frailty and access site on 30-day mortality on the additive scale (relative excess risk due to interaction = 5.95). Nonfemoral access was associated with increased 1-year mortality in frail patients (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.93) but not in nonfrail patients (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 0.90 to 3.74), although there was no statistical evidence of interaction., Conclusions: Frail patients undergoing TAVR via a more invasive nonfemoral access face a substantially higher risk of 30-day mortality, whereas nonfrail older adults tolerate the procedure with a low short-term risk irrespective of access route., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Structural heart disease interventions have evolved into an important component of interventional cardiology fellowship programs worldwide. Given the complexity of such interventions, the breadth of knowledge needed for optimal patient selection and postprocedural management, and the skills to perform them efficiently, advanced training has become mandatory. Postgraduate medical training in Canada has always been on the cutting edge of new technology, and excellent care is provided to the increasing population of adult patients with congenital heart disease. The current survey sought to collect relevant information and assess the opinion of interventional cardiology program directors in Canada regarding training in structural interventions. Our study reports the approximate number of structural procedures performed by interventional cardiology fellows in Canadian interventional cardiology fellowship programs, the form of the structural training, and the suggestions of program directors who are actively trying to integrate structural training into interventional cardiology fellowship programs., (Copyright © 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR) is an emerging therapy for nonsurgical patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We investigated whether novel therapeutic approaches may facilitate AVR outcomes for high-risk patients., Methods and Results: Eleven patients [n = 6 (54%) men] aged 82 +/- 10 years underwent PAVR after being refused for open surgery. The mean+/-SD AV area and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of these patients was 0.56 +/- 0.19 cm(2) and 49 +/- 17%, respectively, with severe functional limitation (NYHA class III (n = 8) and IV (n = 3)). One patient underwent PAVR combined with simultaneous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Two male patients needed left iliac artery angioplasty. A percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) was used in the most recent case. Compared with pre-PAVR, mean AV area (1.3 +/- 0.4 cm(2); P < 0.001) and LVEF (56 +/- 11%; P < 0.001) increased. One man had a peri-procedural stroke and died 5 days post-PAVR. Four other patients died within 4 months of hospital discharge. The median duration of survival of the survivors was 305 (range 249-431) days., Conclusions: Novel percutaneous techniques facilitate CoreValve PAVR (21 Fr.). Future lower profile devices (e.g. 18 Fr. Generation III CoreValve) should permit inclusion of a broader spectrum of high-risk patients. PAVR may evolve toward a full percutaneous approach., ((c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)