Search

BackgroundThe Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Coordinated Registry Network (CRN) supported 23 regulatory decisions and ensured evidence-based evaluation of the application of TVT technology. However, there are cost concerns that require value assessment of the TVT CRN compared with traditional study designs.ObjectivesWe aimed to determine the value created by the TVT CRN based on (1) Return on investment (ROI), (2) Time saved (TS) in conducting necessary regulatory studies.MethodsFor both ROI and TS analyses, we compared studies that used the TVT CRN with those that would have been required if the registry did not exist (counterfactual studies). To estimate ROI, we accounted for the costs of investment and gain from investment. Both the counterfactual costs and length of studies were projected using design specifications determined by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewers.ResultsWe identified 21 studies using the TVT CRN (supporting 23 FDA decisions) that generated evidence on TVT for three device manufacturers. ROI is estimated to be greater than 550%. TS by using the CRN ranged from months to years.ConclusionsThe CRN method to evidence generation creates value for manufacturers and the broader device ecosystem, demonstrated with this example of the TVT CRN. The public health benefits of evidence created by this CRN outweighs the difference in data quality between traditional clinical studies and the CRN method.

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Background Although the benefits of both SES and PES are well-established, studies comparing these stents directly have yielded conflicting results. Methods We used data from the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) registry to compare in-hospital and 1-year outcomes among unselected patients undergoing nonemergent PCI with either SES or PES implantation. Results Between July 2004 and June 2006, 6,035 patients underwent PCI with either SES (n = 3,443) or PES (n = 2,592) at 47 U.S. centers. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were generally similar for the 2 stent types. At 1-year, there were no differences in the primary end point of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) between the SES and PES groups (9.1% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.11) or in any individual end points including cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or stent thrombosis. In unadjusted analyses, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was slightly more common with SES than with PES (4.4% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.048), but this difference was no longer apparent after adjusting for baseline characteristics as well as site-related factors (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 1.50). Conclusions Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, adjusted rates of both ischemic complications as well as clinically important restenosis were similar for SES and PES. The unexpected finding that TLR was influenced by site characteristics suggests that the correlation between TLR and angiographic restenosis might be weaker than previously described and warrants further study.

Percutaneous intervention for peripheral artery disease has evolved from balloon angioplasty for simple focal lesions to multimodality techniques that enable treatment of severe arterial insufficiency. This technological expansion comes without a standard approach or algorithm, which makes the decision-making process more subjective than objective. Nevertheless, clinical tools are available that can have a favorable effect on patient care, and these promote usage. So, when are standard endovascular techniques (such as balloon and stents) good enough, and when are the latest advances (eg, atherectomy, drug-eluting stents) more appropriate? This section will address these questions for acute limb ischemia (ALI) and chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI). It will also delineate the problem of restenosis, particularly of the superficial femoral artery (SFA), and describe treatment alternatives. The discussion will review the role of drug-eluting stents, atherectomy devices, reentry catheters, and brachytherapy, as well as their potential complications and appropriate remedies. Treatment algorithms for aortoiliac and infrainguinal disease are provided in Figures 1 through 3⇓⇓. Figure 1. Treatment algorithm for acute lower-limb ischemia. *Short infusion of thrombolytic therapy proximal to occlusion can be used to facilitate wire traversal. Figure 2. Simplified treatment algorithm for symptomatic aortoiliac disease in patients deemed candidates for revascularization. In patients with multilevel disease, the aortoiliac segment should be addressed first. TASC indicates TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; AI, aortoiliac; PTA, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty; PE, physical examination; ABI, ankle-brachial index; and U/S, ultrasound. Figure 3. Simplified treatment algorithm for symptomatic infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease, assuming concomitant aortoiliac disease has been treated and the patient is an acceptable candidate for revascularization. *Alternative therapies to PTA include cryotherapy, atherectomy (directional, rotational, ablative), and cutting balloon. †Alternative stent options include stent (graft, balloon expanding, and self expanding) and drug-eluting stent. PTA indicates percutaneous transluminal angioplasty; TASC, TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; PE, physical examination; …

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).Although the benefits of both SES and PES are well-established, studies comparing these stents directly have yielded conflicting results.We used data from the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) registry to compare in-hospital and 1-year outcomes among unselected patients undergoing nonemergent PCI with either SES or PES implantation.Between July 2004 and June 2006, 6,035 patients underwent PCI with either SES (n = 3,443) or PES (n = 2,592) at 47 U.S. centers. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were generally similar for the 2 stent types. At 1-year, there were no differences in the primary end point of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) between the SES and PES groups (9.1% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.11) or in any individual end points including cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or stent thrombosis. In unadjusted analyses, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was slightly more common with SES than with PES (4.4% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.048), but this difference was no longer apparent after adjusting for baseline characteristics as well as site-related factors (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 1.50).Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, adjusted rates of both ischemic complications as well as clinically important restenosis were similar for SES and PES. The unexpected finding that TLR was influenced by site characteristics suggests that the correlation between TLR and angiographic restenosis might be weaker than previously described and warrants further study.