Sirolimus-eluting stent treatment at high-volume centers confers lower mortality at 6-month follow-up: results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry

BACKGROUND: Studies continue to identify percutaneous coronary intervention procedural volume both at the institutional level and at the operator level as being strongly correlated with outcome. High-volume centers have been defined as those that perform >400 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures per year. The relationship between drug-eluting stent procedural volume and outcome is unknown. We investigated this relationship in the German Cypher Registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present analysis included 8201 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents between April 2002 and September 2005 in 51 centers. Centers that recruited >400 sirolimus-eluting stent patients in this time period were considered high-volume centers; those with 150 to 400 patients were considered intermediate-volume centers; and those with <150 patients were designated as low-volume centers. The primary end point was all death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 6 months. This end point occurred in 11.3%, 12.1%, and 9.0% of patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-volume center groups, respectively (P=0.0001). There was no difference between groups in the rate of target-vessel revascularization (P=0.2) or cerebrovascular accidents (P=0.5). The difference in death/myocardial infarction remained significant after adjustment for baseline factors (odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.59, P<0.001 for low-volume centers; odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.21, P<0.001 for intermediate-volume centers). Patient and lesion selection, procedural features, and postprocedural medications differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of sirolimus-eluting stent procedures performed on an institutional level was inversely related to death and myocardial infarction but not to target-vessel revascularization at 6-month follow-up. Safety issues are better considered in high-volume centers. These findings have important public health policy implications.

A comparison of patient characteristics and 30-day mortality outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of aortic stenosis: a two-centre study

AIMS: It is unclear whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) addresses an unmet clinical need for those currently rejected for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and whether there is a subgroup of high-risk patients benefiting more from TAVI compared to SAVR. In this two-centre, prospective cohort study, we compared baseline characteristics and 30-day mortality between TAVI and SAVR in consecutive patients undergoing invasive treatment for aortic stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pre-specified different adjustment methods to examine the effect of TAVI as compared with SAVR on overall 30-day mortality: crude univariable logistic regression analysis, multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics, analysis adjusted for propensity scores, propensity score matched analysis, and weighted analysis using the inverse probability of treatment (IPT) as weights. A total of 1,122 patients were included in the study: 114 undergoing TAVI and 1,008 patients undergoing SAVR. The crude mortality rate was greater in the TAVI group (9.6% vs. 2.3%) yielding an odds ratio [OR] of 4.57 (95%-CI 2.17-9.65). Compared to patients undergoing SAVR, patients with TAVI were older, more likely to be in NYHA class III and IV, and had a considerably higher logistic EuroSCORE and more comorbid conditions. Adjusted OR depended on the method used to control for confounding and ranged from 0.60 (0.11-3.36) to 7.57 (0.91-63.0). We examined the distribution of propensity scores and found scores to overlap sufficiently only in a narrow range. In patients with sufficient overlap of propensity scores, adjusted OR ranged from 0.35 (0.04-2.72) to 3.17 (0.31 to 31.9). In patients with insufficient overlap, we consistently found increased odds of death associated with TAVI compared with SAVR irrespective of the method used to control confounding, with adjusted OR ranging from 5.88 (0.67-51.8) to 25.7 (0.88-750). Approximately one third of patients undergoing TAVI were found to be potentially eligible for a randomised comparison of TAVI versus SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Both measured and unmeasured confounding limit the conclusions that can be drawn from observational comparisons of TAVI versus SAVR. Our study indicates that TAVI could be associated with either substantial benefits or harms. Randomised comparisons of TAVI versus SAVR are warranted.