Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses - part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27%relative reduction in the mean depression score).

Impact of mitral regurgitation on clinical outcomes of patients with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND Up to 1 in 6 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) present with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis and concomitant relevant mitral regurgitation (MR) is present in 30% to 55% of these patients. The effect of MR on clinical outcomes of LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 113 (18.7%) patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg, aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) were analyzed. LEF-LG patients were dichotomized into ≤mild MR (n=52) and ≥moderate MR (n=61). Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. No differences in mortality were observed at 30 days (P=0.76). At 1 year, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR had an adjusted 3-fold higher rate of all-cause mortality (11.5% versus 38.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-8.15]; P=0.011), as compared with LEF-LG patients with ≤mild MR. Mortality was mainly driven by cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.62; P=0.005). As compared with LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR assigned to medical therapy, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR undergoing TAVI had significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.75) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Moderate or severe MR is a strong independent predictor of late mortality in LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI. However, LEF-LG patients assigned to medical therapy have a dismal prognosis independent of MR severity suggesting that TAVI should not be withheld from symptomatic patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis even in the presence of moderate or severe MR.

Effect of Pulmonary Hypertension Hemodynamic Presentation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insights From the New Proposed Pulmonary Hypertension Classification.

BACKGROUND Pulmonary hypertension (PH) frequently coexists with severe aortic stenosis, and PH severity has been shown to predict outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The effect of PH hemodynamic presentation on clinical outcomes after TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 433 (71.4%) patients with severe aortic stenosis and a preprocedural right heart catheterization were assessed. Patients were dichotomized according to whether PH was present (mean pulmonary artery pressure, ≥25 mm Hg; n=325) or not (n=108). Patients with PH were further dichotomized by left ventricular end-diastolic pressure into postcapillary (left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, >15 mm Hg; n=269) and precapillary groups (left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, ≤15 mm Hg; n=56). Finally, patients with postcapillary PH were divided into isolated (n=220) and combined (n=49) subgroups according to whether the diastolic pressure difference (diastolic pulmonary artery pressure-left ventricular end-diastolic pressure) was normal (<7 mm Hg) or elevated (≥7 mm Hg). Primary end point was mortality at 1 year. PH was present in 325 of 433 (75%) patients and was predominantly postcapillary (n=269/325; 82%). Compared with baseline, systolic pulmonary artery pressure immediately improved after TAVI in patients with postcapillary combined (57.8±14.1 versus 50.4±17.3 mm Hg; P=0.015) but not in those with precapillary (49.0±12.6 versus 51.6±14.3; P=0.36). When compared with no PH, a higher 1-year mortality rate was observed in both precapillary (hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-5.22; P=0.046) and combined (hazard ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-6.93; P=0.004) but not isolated PH patients (P=0.11). After adjustment, combined PH remained a strong predictor of 1-year mortality after TAVI (hazard ratio, 3.28; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS Invasive stratification of PH according to hemodynamic presentation predicts acute response to treatment and 1-year mortality after TAVI.