Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24021691›Full record

Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2013

How to define a poor outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: conceptual framework and empirical observations from the placement of aortic transcatheter valve (PARTNER) trial.

Suzanne V Arnold, John A Spertus, Yang Lei, Philip Green, Ajay J Kirtane, Samir Kapadia, Vinod H Thourani, Howard C Herrmann, Nirat Beohar, Alan Zajarias and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Suzanne V ArnoldSaint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO.
John A Spertus
Yang Lei
Philip Green
Ajay J Kirtane
Samir Kapadia
Vinod H Thourani
Howard C Herrmann
Nirat Beohar
Alan Zajarias
Michael J Mack
Martin B Leon
David J Cohen

Funding

Optimal Decision Making in Aortic Valve ReplacementK23HL116799 · NHLBI · SAINT LUKE'S HOSPITAL · PI ARNOLD, SUZANNE VICTORIA · 2014 to 2018
$635k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL116799
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a less invasive option for valve replacement of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Although it has been recommended that TAVR should not be offered to patients who will not improve functionally or derive meaningful survival benefit from the procedure, no guidance exists on how best to identify such patients. The first step in this process is to define a poor outcome that can then be used as a foundation for subsequent case identification. We sought to evaluate potential definitions of a poor outcome after TAVR that combine both mortality and quality of life components. METHODS AND

resultsUsing data from 463 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) trial, we evaluated 6-month mortality and quality of life outcomes using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire to explore potential definitions of a poor outcome. We then compared the strengths and weaknesses of each potential definition by examining the relationship between baseline and 6-month Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores for each patient. Based on these analyses, we argue that the most appropriate definition of a poor outcome after TAVR is (1) death, (2) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score <45, or (3) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire decrease of ≥10 points, which best reflects a failure to achieve the therapeutic goals of TAVR.

conclusionsUsing empirical data on a large number of patients enrolled in the PARTNER trial, we propose a definition for poor outcome after TAVR that combines both mortality and quality of life measures into a single composite end point. Use of this end point (or other similar end points) in future studies can facilitate development of predictive models that may be useful to identify patients who are poor candidates for TAVR and to provide such patients and their families with appropriate expectations of functional recovery after TAVR.

Indexed as

Endpoint DeterminationResearch DesignTerminology as TopicAgedAged, 80 and overAortic Valve StenosisCardiac CatheterizationFemaleHealth StatusHealth Status IndicatorsHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMaleQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and Questionnairesaortic valve stenosisquality of lifetranscatheter aortic valvevalve

Identifiers

PMID24021691
PMCPMC4251553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.