Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the predictive value of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) for major adverse cardiac events in the all-comers population of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. BACKGROUND: The SXscore has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial (patients after surgical revascularization were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up, according to 1 of 3 SXscore tertiles. RESULTS: The 1,397 patients were divided into tertiles based on the SXscore in the following fashion: SXscore8 and 16 (SXhigh) (n=461). At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of SXscore (SXlow=92.2%, SXmid=91.1%, and SXhigh=84.6%; p<0.001). Death occurred in 1.5% of SXlow patients, 2.1% of SXmid patients, and 5.6% of SXhigh patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29 to 3.01; p=0.002). The myocardial infarction rate tended to be higher in the SXhigh group. Target vessel revascularization was 11.3% in the SXhigh group compared with 6.3% and 7.8% in the SXlow and SXmid groups, respectively (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.75; p=0.006). Composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization was 7.8%, 8.9%, and 15.4% in the SXlow, SXmid, and SXhigh groups, respectively (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.81; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SXscore, when applied to an all-comers patient population treated with drug-eluting stents, may allow prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (LEADERS Trial Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating; NCT00389220).

A randomized trial of effects of health risk appraisal combined with group sessions or home visits on preventive behaviors in older adults

Background. To explore effects of a health risk appraisal for older people (HRA-O) program with reinforcement, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in 21 general practices in Hamburg, Germany. Methods. Overall, 2,580 older patients of 14 general practitioners trained in reinforcing recommendations related to HRA-O-identified risk factors were randomized into intervention (n = 878) and control (n = 1,702) groups. Patients (n = 746) of seven additional matched general practitioners who did not receive this training served as a comparison group. Patients allocated to the intervention group, and their general practitioners, received computer-tailored written recommendations, and patients were offered the choice between interdisciplinary group sessions (geriatrician, physiotherapist, social worker, and nutritionist) and home visits (nurse). Results. Among the intervention group, 580 (66%) persons made use of personal reinforcement (group sessions: 503 [87%], home visits: 77 [13%]). At 1-year follow-up, persons in the intervention group had higher use of preventive services (eg, influenza vaccinations, adjusted odds ratio 1.7; 95% confidence interval 1.4–2.1) and more favorable health behavior (eg, high fruit/fiber intake, odds ratio 2.0; 95% confidence interval 1.6–2.6), as compared with controls. Comparisons between intervention and comparison group data revealed similar effects, suggesting that physician training alone had no effect. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable effects for HRA-O with personal reinforcement, but not for HRA-O without reinforcement. Conclusions. HRA-O combined with physician training and personal reinforcement had favorable effects on preventive care use and health behavior.

Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing real versus placebo acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation: a study protocol

Background Sedation prior to performance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDE) is widespread and increases patient comfort. But 98% of all serious adverse events during EGDEs are ascribed to sedation. The S3 guideline for sedation procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy published in 2008 in Germany increases patient safety by standardization. These new regulations increase costs because of the need for more personnel and a prolonged discharge procedure after examinations with sedation. Many patients have difficulties to meet the discharge criteria regulated by the S3 guideline, e.g. the call for a second person to escort them home, to resign from driving and working for the rest of the day, resulting in a refusal of sedation. Therefore, we would like to examine if an acupuncture during elective, diagnostic EGDEs could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation. Methods/Design A single-center, double blinded, placebo controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective, diagnostic EGDEs with real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic EGDE who refuse a systemic sedation are eligible. 354 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the rate of successful EGDEs with the randomized technique. Intervention: Real or placebo acupuncture before and during EGDE. Duration of study: Approximately 24 months. Discussion Organisation/Responsibility The ACUPEND - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Center (IEZ) of the University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial, including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI) and the Center of Clinical Trials (KSC) at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg.

Favorable effect of priming with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in remission induction of acute myeloid leukemia restricted to dose-escalation of cytarabine

The clinical value of chemotherapy sensitization of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with G-CSF priming has remained controversial. Cytarabine is a key constituent of remission induction chemotherapy. The effect of G-CSF priming has not been investigated in relationship with variable dose levels of cytarabine. We randomized 917 AML patients to receive G-CSF (456 patients) or no G-CSF (461 patients) at the days of chemotherapy. In the initial part of the study, 406 patients were also randomized between 2 cytarabine regimens comparing conventional-dose (199 patients) versus escalated-dose (207 patients) cytarabine in cycles 1 and 2. We found that patients after induction chemotherapy plus G-CSF had similar overall survival (43% vs 40%, P = .88), event-free survival (37% vs 31%, P = .29), and relapse rates (34% vs 36%, P = .77) at 5 years as those not receiving G-CSF. However, patients treated with the escalated-dose cytarabine regimen benefited from G-CSF priming, with improved event-free survival (P = .01) and overall survival (P = .003), compared with patients without G-CSF undergoing escalated-dose cytarabine treatment. A significant survival advantage of sensitizing AML for chemotherapy with G-CSF was not apparent in the entire study group, but it was seen in patients treated with escalated-dose cytarabine during remission induction. The HOVON-42 study is registered under The Netherlands Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl) as #NTR230.

Compression hosiery for occupational leg symptoms and leg volume: a randomized crossover trial in a cohort of hairdressers

OBJECTIVE: Occupational leg symptoms are highly prevalent in the general population and impair the psychic state of health. We investigated hairdressers, a cohort exposed to prolonged standing during work, in a randomized crossover trial. We hypothesized that hairdressers wearing low-strength compression hosiery would benefit from less leg volume increase and discomfort. METHODS: One hundred and eight hairdressers were randomized to wear medical compression stockings (MCS; 15-20 mmHg) in a crossover study. The effect of MCS on symptoms and on lower leg volume was compared with no compression treatment. Symptoms were assessed with a comprehensive questionnaire, categorized using factor analysis with varimax rotation and correlated with leg volume changes. RESULTS: Wearing MCS reduced the symptom score for pain and feelings of swelling (range 0-4) by an average of 0.22 (12%, P < 0.001). Sleep disturbance, feeling of unattractive legs and depressiveness improved with MCS compared with no MCS. Subjects initially obliged to refrain from wearing stockings showed a significant decrease of pain and feelings of swelling as well (by 0.10 [6%], P = 0.015). Wearing MCS was associated with a decrease of lower leg volume by an average of 19 mL (P < 0.001), with preference in older hairdressers (P < 0.001). The effects of wearing MCS on symptoms and on leg volume were not correlated with each other. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals working in a standing profession experience leg pain, feelings of swelling, heaviness and various other disturbing feelings. These symptoms can be alleviated by wearing low-strength MCS.

Comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with zotarolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization a randomized controlled trial

Objectives This study sought to compare the efficacy of passive stent coating with titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO) with drug-eluting stents releasing zotarolimus (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). Background Stent coating with TiNO has been shown to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents in experimental and clinical studies. Methods In an assessor-blind noninferiority study, 302 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with TiNO or ZES. The primary endpoint was in-stent late loss at 6 to 8 months, and analysis was by intention to treat. Results Both groups were well balanced with respect to baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The TiNO group failed to reach the pre-specified noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint (in-stent late loss: 0.64 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.48 mm, difference: 0.16, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26; pnoninferiority = 0.54), and subsequent superiority testing was in favor of ZES (psuperiority = 0.02). In-segment binary restenosis was lower with ZES (11.1%) than with TiNO (20.5%; psuperiority = 0.04). A stratified analysis of the primary endpoint found particularly pronounced differences between stents among diabetic versus nondiabetic patients (0.90 ± 0.69 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.38 mm; pinteraction = 0.04). Clinical outcomes showed a similar rate of death (0.7% vs. 0.7%; p = 1.00), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.60), and major adverse cardiac events (21.1% vs. 18.0%, hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.00; p = 0.50) at 1 year. There were no differences in rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.51) at 1 year. Conclusions Compared with TiNO, ZES was superior with regard to late loss and binary restenosis. The concept of passive stent coating with TiNO remains inferior to drug-eluting stent technology in reducing restenosis. ([TIDE] Randomized Trial Comparing Titan Stent With Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent: NCT00492908)

Implantation of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with high SYNTAX score is associated with decreased cardiac mortality compared to a permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent: two year follow-up results from the "all-comers" LEADERS trial

Background: The SYNTAX score (SXscore) has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the “all-comers” LEADERS trial (patients post-surgical revascularisation were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up, according to one of three SXscore tertiles: SXlow ≤8 (n=464), 816 (n=461). At two-year follow-up the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.4%, 12.0% and 9.4% in the SXhigh, SXmid, and SXlow tertile, respectively (HR 1.45; CI 1.21-1.74; p<0.01). There was a significantly higher rate of cardiac death in patients in the highest SXscore tertile (7% SXhigh versus 2.4% SXmid versus 1.8% SXlow; HR 2.22; CI 1.5-3.27; p<0.001). Within the SXhigh tertile the rate of cardiac death was significantly lower in patients treated with the biolimus-eluting stent compared with the sirolimus-eluting stent (4.7% versus 9.6%, HR 0.48; CI 0.23-0.99; p=0.046). Conclusions: The SXscore when applied to an “all-comers” patient population allows for prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing PCI up to two years follow-up. In addition, the SXscore appears to separate the performance of devices in high risk patient groups.

The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial

This study assessed the ability of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) to stratify risk in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using zotarolimus-eluting or everolimus-eluting stents.

Value of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF score) in assessing risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the 'All-Comers' LEADERS trial

Background— The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction+1 if creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) has been established as an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery; however, its utility in “all-comer” patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is yet unexplored. Methods and Results— The ACEF score was calculated for 1208 of the 1707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial. Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up according to ACEF score tertiles: ACEFlow ≤1.0225, 1.0225< ACEFmid ≤1.277, and ACEFhigh >1.277. At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major adverse cardiac event–free survival in the highest tertile of the ACEF score (ACEFlow=92.1%, ACEFmid=89.5%, and ACEFhigh=86.1%; P=0.0218). Cardiac death was less frequent in ACEFlow than in ACEFmid and ACEFhigh (0.7% vs 2.2% vs 4.5%; hazard ratio=2.22, P=0.002) patients. Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly higher in patients with a high ACEF score (6.7% for ACEFhigh vs 5.2% for ACEFmid and 2.5% for ACEFlow; hazard ratio=1.6, P=0.006). Clinically driven target-vessel revascularization also tended to be higher in the ACEFhigh group, but the difference among the 3 groups did not reach statistical significance. The rate of composite definite, possible, and probable stent thrombosis was also higher in the ACEFhigh group (ACEFlow=1.2%, ACEFmid=3.5%, and ACEFhigh=6.2%; hazard ratio=2.04, P<0.001). Conclusions— ACEF score may be a simple way to stratify risk of events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with respect to mortality and risk of myocardial infarction.

Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study

Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 2007 that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD). We retrieved trial reports contributing to the first SMD result in each review, and downloaded review protocols. We used these SMDs to identify a specific outcome for each meta-analysis from its protocol. Review methods Reviews were eligible if SMD results were based on two to ten randomised trials and if protocols described the outcome. We excluded reviews if they only presented results of subgroup analyses. Based on review protocols and index outcomes, two observers independently extracted the data necessary to calculate SMDs from the original trial reports for any intervention group, time point, or outcome measure compatible with the protocol. From the extracted data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to calculate all possible SMDs for every meta-analysis. Results We identified 19 eligible meta-analyses (including 83 trials). Published review protocols often lacked information about which data to choose. Twenty-four (29%) trials reported data for multiple intervention groups, 30 (36%) reported data for multiple time points, and 29 (35%) reported the index outcome measured on multiple scales. In 18 meta-analyses, we found multiplicity of data in at least one trial report; the median difference between the smallest and largest SMD results within a meta-analysis was 0.40 standard deviation units (range 0.04 to 0.91). Conclusions Multiplicity of data can affect the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To reduce the risk of bias, reviews and meta-analyses should comply with prespecified protocols that clearly identify time points, intervention groups, and scales of interest.

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials

Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.

Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Combined anatomical and clinical factors for the long-term risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score

The SYNTAX score (SXscore), an anatomical-based scoring tool reflecting the complexity of coronary anatomy, has established itself as an important long-term prognostic factor in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The incorporation of clinical factors may further augment the utility of the SXscore to longer-term risk stratify the individual patient for clinical outcomes.

SPIRIT Women, evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in female patients: referral time for coronary intervention and 2-year clinical outcomes

SPIRIT Women is the first interventional trial dedicated exclusively to women, focusing on symptoms at presentation, referral time to coronary intervention and the safety and performance of the XIENCE V stent.