Search

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP.Methods/design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked.Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough.Trial Registration: NCT02476279, registered June 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have examined the impact of novel indices of comorbidity, frailty, and disability on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).Objectives: This study analyzed patients from the Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial program to develop a simple scoring system that incorporates standard and novel predictor variables.Methods: A multidisciplinary heart team used objective criteria, such as The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM), and subjective criteria to assess patients' eligibility for TAVR. The analysis included 3,687 patients randomly divided (2:1) into a derivation cohort (n = 2,482) and a validation cohort (n = 1,205). The study evaluated predictors of all-cause death, which were used to calculate a risk score for each patient.Results: The overall mortality rate was 5.8% at 30 days and 22.8% at 1 year. Home oxygen use, assisted living, albumin levels <3.3 g/dl, and age >85 years predicted death at 30 days. Home oxygen use, albumin levels <3.3 g/dl, falls in the past 6 months, STS PROM score >7%, and severe (≥5) Charlson comorbidity score predicted death at 1 year. A simple scoring system created on the basis of these multivariable predictors effectively stratified risk at 30 days and 1 year into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk subsets. This score showed a 3-fold difference in mortality rates for the low-risk and high-risk subsets at 30 days (3.6% and 10.9%, respectively) and 1 year (12.3% and 36.6%, respectively). The 1-year mortality model was more stable than the 30-day model (C-statistics: 0.79 vs. 0.75).Conclusions: A simple score dominated by novel predictors of outcome effectively stratified early and late mortality rates in extreme-risk and high-risk patients and may assist in selecting appropriate candidates for TAVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]