Search

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the applicability of pivotal transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials to the real-world population of Medicare patients undergoing TAVR.BackgroundIt is unclear whether randomized controlled trial results of novel cardiovascular devices apply to patients encountered in clinical practice.MethodsCharacteristics of patients enrolled in the U.S. CoreValve pivotal trials were compared with those of the population of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR in U.S. clinical practice between November 2, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Inverse probability weighting was used to reweight the trial cohort on the basis of Medicare patient characteristics, and a "real-world" treatment effect was estimated.ResultsA total of 2,026 patients underwent TAVR in the U.S. CoreValve pivotal trials, and 135,112 patients underwent TAVR in the Medicare cohort. Trial patients were mostly similar to real-world patients at baseline, though trial patients were more likely to have hypertension (50% vs 39%) and coagulopathy (25% vs 17%), whereas real-world patients were more likely to have congestive heart failure (75% vs 68%) and frailty. The estimated real-world treatment effect of TAVR was an 11.4% absolute reduction in death or stroke (95% CI: 7.50%-14.92%) and an 8.7% absolute reduction in death (95% CI: 5.20%-12.32%) at 1 year with TAVR compared with conventional therapy (surgical aortic valve replacement for intermediate- and high-risk patients and medical therapy for extreme-risk patients).ConclusionsThe trial and real-world populations were mostly similar, with some notable differences. Nevertheless, the extrapolated real-world treatment effect was at least as high as the observed trial treatment effect, suggesting that the absolute benefit of TAVR in clinical trials is similar to the benefit of TAVR in the U.S. real-world setting.

Background: Frailty is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes independent of age and comorbidities, yet the independent influence of frailty progression on cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain. Methods: To determine whether frailty progression is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, independent of baseline frailty and age, we evaluated all Medicare Fee‐for‐Service beneficiaries ≥65 years at cohort inception with continuous enrollment from 2003 to 2015. Linear mixed effects models, adjusted for baseline frailty and age, were used to estimate change in a validated claims‐based frailty index (CFI) over a 5‐year period. Survival analysis was used to examine frailty progression and risk of adverse health outcomes. Results: There were 8.9 million unique patients identified, mean age 77.3 ± 7.2 years, 58.7% female, 10.9% non‐White race. In total, 60% had frailty progression and 40% frailty regression over median follow‐up of 2.4 years. Compared to those with frailty regression, when adjusting for age and baseline CFI, those with frailty progression had a significantly greater risk of incident major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31–1.31), all‐cause mortality (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.34–1.34), acute myocardial infarction (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.07–1.09), heart failure exacerbation (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.29–1.30), ischemic stroke (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.14–1.15). There was also a graded increase in risk of each outcome with more rapid progression, as well as significantly fewer days alive at home (DAH) with more rapid progression compared to the slowest progression group (270.4 ± 112.3 vs. 308.6 ± 93.0 days, rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.87–0.88, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this large, nationwide sample of older Medicare beneficiaries, frailty progression, independent of age and baseline frailty, was associated with fewer DAH and a graded risk of MACCE, all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemic stroke compared to those with frailty regression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Data from administrative claims may provide an efficient alternative for end point ascertainment in clinical trials. However, it is uncertain how well claims data compare to adjudication by a clinical events committee in trials of patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We matched 1336 patients ≥65 years old who received percutaneous coronary intervention in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) Study with the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry linked to Medicare claims as part of the EXTEND (Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data) Study. Adjudicated trial end points were compared with Medicare claims data with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from inpatient hospitalizations using time-to-event analyses, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and kappa statistics. RESULTS: At 21-month follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (combined mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was similar between trial-adjudicated events and claims data (7.9% versus 7.2%, respectively; P=0.50). Bleeding rates were lower using adjudicated events compared with claims (5.0% versus 8.6%, respectively; P<0.001). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of comprehensive billing codes for identifying adjudicated events were 65.6% and 85.7% for myocardial infarction, 61.5% and 47.1% for stroke, and 76.8% and 39.3% for bleeding, respectively. Specificity and negative predictive value for all outcomes ranged from 93.7% to 99.5%. All 39 adjudicated deaths were identified using Medicare data. Kappa statistics assessing agreement between events for myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding were 0.73, 0.52, and 0.49, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data had moderate agreement with adjudication for myocardial infarction and poor agreement but high specificity for bleeding and stroke in the DAPT Study. Deaths were identified equivalently. Using claims data in clinical trials could be an efficient way to assess mortality among Medicare patients and may help detect other outcomes, although additional monitoring is likely needed to ensure accurate assessment of events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether passively collected data can substitute for adjudicated outcomes to reproduce the magnitude and direction of treatment effect observed in cardiovascular clinical trials is not well known.Methods: We linked adults ≥65 years of age in the HiR (US CoreValve Pivotal High Risk) and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to 100% Medicare inpatient claims, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016. Primary (eg, death and stroke) and secondary trial end points were compared across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated outcomes versus outcomes derived from claims at 1 year (HiR) or 2 years (SURTAVI).Results: Among 600 linked HiR participants (linkage rate, 80.0%), the rate of the trial's primary end point of all-cause mortality occurred in 13.7% of patients receiving TAVR and 16.4% of patients receiving SAVR at 1 year by using both trial data (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.09]; P=0.33) and claims data (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66-1.11]; P=0.34; interaction P value=0.80). Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by using both trial- and claims-based outcomes (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Among 1005 linked SURTAVI trial participants (linkage rate, 60.5%), the trial's primary end point was 12.9% for TAVR and 13.1% for SAVR using trial data (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.90), and 11.3% for TAVR and 12.5% for SAVR patients using claims data (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73-1.41]; P=0.58; interaction P value=0.89). TAVR was noninferior to SAVR when compared using both trial and claims (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Rates of procedural secondary outcomes (eg, aortic valve reintervention, pacemaker rates) were more closely concordant between trial and claims data than nonprocedural outcomes (eg, stroke, bleeding, cardiogenic shock).Conclusions: In the HiR and SURTAVI trials, ascertainment of trial primary end points using claims reproduced both the magnitude and direction of treatment effect in comparison with adjudicated event data, but nonfatal and nonprocedural secondary outcomes were not as well reproduced. Use of claims to substitute for adjudicated outcomes in traditional trial treatment comparisons may be valid and feasible for all-cause mortality and certain procedural outcomes but may be less suitable for other end points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objectives This study sought to evaluate the trends in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures across hospitals with different transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) volumes among Medicare beneficiaries. Background The volume of TAVR has increased in the United States since its approval, now exceeding that of isolated SAVR. Methods Hospitalizations of adults (≥18 years of age) with International Classification of Diseases-9th Revision-Clinical Modification procedure codes for SAVR (35.21 or 35.22) or TAVR (35.05 or 35.06) who were included in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014, were included. Trends in isolated SAVR patient characteristics, procedural volumes, and outcomes by quartile (Q) of hospital-level TAVR use were assessed over the study period. Results A total of 37,705 isolated SAVR procedures were analyzed for the study. The annual volume of isolated SAVR procedures decreased in hospitals performing the largest number of TAVR procedures (Q3: 1,557 in 2011 to 1,391 in 2014; and Q4: 2,607 in 2011 to 1,791 in 2014). Thirty-day and 1-year mortality after SAVR also declined over the study period in hospitals with the largest TAVR volume (annual change rate in mortality for Q3: −16.4%; p < 0.001; Q4: −20.8%; p < 0.001). Conclusions The advent of TAVR was associated with a reduction in isolated SAVR volumes, a decrease in comorbidities among patients undergoing SAVR, and corresponding reductions in observed short- and long-term SAVR mortality among hospitals performing the greatest number of TAVRs. Graphical abstract [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Readmission rates after hospitalizations for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia among Medicare beneficiaries are used to assess quality and determine reimbursement. Whether these measures reflect readmission rates for other conditions or insurance groups is unknown.Objective: To investigate whether hospital-level 30-day readmission measures for publicly reported conditions (HF, AMI, and pneumonia) among Medicare patients reflect those for Medicare patients hospitalized for unreported conditions or non-Medicare patients hospitalized with HF, AMI, or pneumonia.Design: Cross-sectional.Setting: Population-based.Participants: Hospitals in the all-payer Nationwide Readmissions Database in 2013 and 2014.Measurements: Hospital-level 30-day all-cause risk-standardized excess readmission ratios (ERRs) were compared for 3 groups of patients: Medicare beneficiaries admitted for HF, AMI, or pneumonia (Medicare reported group); Medicare beneficiaries admitted for other conditions (Medicare unreported group); and non-Medicare beneficiaries admitted for HF, AMI, or pneumonia (non-Medicare group).Results: Within-hospital differences in ERRs varied widely among groups. Medicare reported ratios differed from Medicare unreported ratios by more than 0.1 for 29% of hospitals and from non-Medicare ratios by more than 0.1 for 46% of hospitals. Among hospitals with higher readmission ratios, ERRs for the Medicare reported group tended to overestimate ERRs for the non-Medicare group but underestimate those for the Medicare unreported group.Limitation: Medicare groups and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Conclusion: Hospital ERRs, as estimated by Medicare to determine financial penalties, have poor agreement with corresponding measures for populations and conditions not tied to financial penalties. Current publicly reported measures may not be good surrogates for overall hospital quality related to 30-day readmissions.Primary Funding Source: Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have examined rates and causes of short-term readmissions among adults across age and insurance types. We compared rates, characteristics, and costs of 30-day readmission after all-cause hospitalizations across insurance types in the US. We retrospectively evaluated alive patients ≥18 years old, discharged for any cause, 1/1/13-11/31/13, 2006 non-federal hospitals in 21 states in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. The primary stratification variable of interest was primary insurance. Comorbid conditions were assessed based on Elixhauser comorbidities, as defined by administrative billing codes. Additional measures included diagnoses for index hospitalizations leading to rehospitalization. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models, with hospital site as a random effect, were used to calculate the adjusted odds of 30-day readmissions by age group and insurance categories. Cost and discharge estimates were weighted per NRD procedures to reflect a nationally representative sample. Diagnoses for index hospitalizations leading to rehospitalization were determined. Among 12,533,551 discharges, 1,818,093 (14.5%) resulted in readmission within 30 days. Medicaid insurance was associated with the highest adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for readmission both in those ≥65 years old (AOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.10–1.14; p <0.001), and 45–64 (AOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.66–1.69; p < 0.001), and Medicare in the 18–44 group (Medicare vs. private insurance: AOR 1.99, 95% CI 1.96–2.01; p <0.001). Discharges for psychiatric or substance abuse disorders, septicemia, and heart failure accounted for the largest numbers of readmissions, with readmission rates of 24.0%, 17.9%, 22.9% respectively. Total costs for readmissions were 50.7 billion USD, highest for Medicare (29.6 billion USD), with non-Medicare costs exceeding 21 billion USD. While Medicare readmissions account for more than half of the total burden of readmissions, costs of non-Medicare readmissions are nonetheless substantial. Medicaid patients have the highest odds of readmission in individuals older than age 44, commonly due to hospitalizations for psychiatric illness and substance abuse disorders. Medicaid patients represent a population at uniquely high risk for readmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty is associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis, but whether or not frail patients derive differential benefit from transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) AVR is uncertain.Methods: We linked adults ≥65 years old in the US CoreValve HiR trial (High-Risk) or SURTAVI trial (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to Medicare claims, February 2, 2011, to September 30, 2015. Two frailty measures, a deficit-based and phenotype-based frailty index (FI), were generated. The treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR was evaluated within FI tertiles for the primary end point of death and nondeath secondary outcomes, using multivariable Cox regression.Results: Of 1442 (linkage rate =60.0%) individuals included, 741 (51.4%) individuals received TAVR and 701 (48.6%) received SAVR (mean age 81.8±6.1 years, 44.0% female). Although 1-year death rates in the highest FI tertiles (deficit-based FI 36.7% and phenotype-based FI 33.8%) were 2- to 3-fold higher than the lowest tertiles (deficit-based FI 13.4%; hazard ratio, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.26-4.02], P<0.001; phenotype-based FI 17.9%; hazard ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.58-2.67], P<0.001), there were no significant differences in the relative or absolute treatment effect of SAVR versus TAVR across FI tertiles for all death, nondeath, and functional outcomes (all interaction P>0.05). Results remained consistent across individual trials, frailty definitions, and when considering the nonlinked trial data.Conclusions: Two different frailty indices based on Fried and Rockwood definitions identified individuals at higher risk of death and functional impairment but no differential benefit from TAVR versus SAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Cerebrovascular events (CVEs) are devastating complications after aortic valve replacement. We assessed whether billing claims accurately identify CVEs in place of clinical event adjudication in structural heart disease trials. Methods: Adult participants in the US CoreValve High Risk and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) were linked to Medicare inpatient claims from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Claims consistent with CVEs within 14 days of a similar trial-adjudicated CVE were considered a match. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, Clinical Modification billing codes for cerebrovascular disease were determined against trial-defined CVEs as the criterion standard. Kaplan-Meier estimates of claims-defined versus trial-defined CVEs were compared. Results: Among 4230 linked trial participants (linkage rate 79.8%), 550 (13.0%) sustained 630 adjudicated CVEs over a 5-year follow-up period. Linked and nonlinked individuals were similar. An algorithm using 4 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (434.91, 434.11, 433.11, and 997.02) had a sensitivity of 60.9%, specificity of 99.0%, positive predictive value of 86.5%, and negative predictive value of 95.8% for identifying a trial-adjudicated ischemic stroke. An algorithm using 3 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (I63.9, I63.40, I63.49) had a sensitivity of 66.7%, specificity of 99.4%, positive predictive value of 88.9%, and negative predictive value of 97.6%. Conclusions: In linked clinical trial and Medicare claims data, 4 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and 3 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification billing codes identified half of trial-adjudicated CVEs during follow-up with high specificity and predictive value, but imperfect sensitivity. Although low sensitivity may limit the use of claims to substitute for traditional trial outcomes to identify CVEs, high specificity suggests claims could be used to trigger evaluation of neurological events, potentially improving the efficiency of the evaluation of techniques and devices designed to reduce such events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While the use of passively collected data from administrative claims has been advocated as an efficient strategy to conduct follow-up of clinical trial patients, whether this approach would yield similar results to trial-adjudicated outcomes has not been well validated. Methods: We matched patients from the US CoreValve Extreme and High-Risk Trials and Continued Access Studies to 100% Medicare inpatient discharge claims, 2011-2014, using procedure date, birthdate, and hospital to identify 1:1 matches. Individuals < 65 years old or those who received AVR at Veterans Affairs or European hospitals were excluded. Using a broad list of candidate claims from literature review, we constructed Kaplan-Meier estimates for index and post-hospitalization events derived from claims or trial data, with censoring per trial criteria, and compared the two across a number of adjudicated endpoints: mortality, bleeding, neurologic events, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results: A total of 3,225 (80%) trial patients were successfully matched. Time to death was well matched between trial and claims data (trial: 1032 deaths, claims: 1034 deaths; Figure 1A). While trial data identified more early bleeding events relative to claims, long-term bleeding and neurologic events were more frequently recorded in claims (bleeding in trial: 1401 events, claims: 1292 events; Figure 1B ; neurologic events in trial: 356 events, claims: 623 events; Figure 1C). MACCE was more commonly recorded using claims data (trial: 1086 events, claims: 1318 events; Figure 1D). Conclusions: Linkage of clinical trials to administrative claims can successfully reproduce time to death outcomes. Trials consistently identify more early bleeding events than a broadly inclusive set of claims, but post-hospitalization outcomes are more frequently recorded in claims. Trials and claims may provide complementary longitudinal information on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Prospectively collected frailty markers are associated with an incremental 1-year mortality risk after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with comorbidities alone. Whether information on frailty markers captured retrospectively in administrative billing data is similarly predictive of long-term mortality after TAVR is unknown. We sought to characterize the prognostic importance of frailty factors as identified in healthcare billing records in comparison to validated measures of frailty for the prediction of long-term mortality after TAVR. Methods and Results Adult patients undergoing TAVR between August 25, 2011, and September 29, 2015, were identified among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The Johns Hopkins Claims-based Frailty Indicator was used to identify frail patients. We used nested Cox regression models to identify claims-based predictors of mortality up to 4 years post-procedure. Four groups of variables, including cardiac risk factors, noncardiac risk factors, patient procedural risk factors, and nontraditional markers of frailty, were introduced sequentially, and their integrated discrimination improvement was assessed. A total of 52 338 TAVR patients from 558 clinical sites were identified, with a mean follow-up time period of 16 months. In total, 14 174 (27.1%) patients died within the study period. The mortality rate was 53.9% at 4 years post-TAVR. A total of 34 863 (66.6%) patients were defined as frail. The discrimination of each of the 4 models was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.59-60), 0.65 (95% CI, 0.64-0.65), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.68), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.69-0.70), respectively. The addition of nontraditional frailty markers as identified in claims improved mortality prediction above and beyond traditional risk factors (integrated discrimination improvement: 0.019; P<0.001). Conclusions Risk prediction models that include frailty as identified in claims data can be used to predict long-term mortality risk after TAVR. Linkage to claims data may allow enhanced mortality risk prediction for studies that do not collect information on frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: administrative claims, healthcare; clinical trial; coronary artery disease EN administrative claims, healthcare clinical trial coronary artery disease 306 308 3 07/23/20 20200721 NES 200721 B Editorial, see p 214 b Using administrative claims data to ascertain clinical events may be a pragmatic way to make randomized, controlled trials cheaper and more efficient. However, little is known about the accuracy of claims data for estimating treatment effects of randomized therapies. [Extracted from the article]