Investigational Device Exemption Trial Research Articles

Genicular Artery Embolization for Treatment of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: 2-Year Outcomes from a Prospective IDE Trial

PurposeTo report the 24-month outcomes and subgroup analysis evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the genicular artery embolization (GAE) for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and MethodsForty participants with symptomatic moderate-to-severe knee OA from a single-center, single-arm, prospective investigational device exemption trial of GAE were included in this study. Abnormal genicular artery neovascularity was identified at the subject’s focal knee pain with digital subtraction angiography and cone-beam computed tomography (CT). Embolization was performed with 100-μm microspheres. The primary end point was treatment effectiveness as measured by sustained improvement in OA symptoms at 24 months, quantified using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Treatment success was defined as ≥50% decrease in WOMAC relative to baseline. Clinical outcomes were assessed with mean age of 66.0 years (SD ± 8.1) and body mass index of 30.1 kg/m2 (SD ± 6.2). ResultsOf the 40 patients, 2 (5.0%) were lost to follow-up. Overall, 18 of 38 (47.4%) patients demonstrated ≥50% reduction in WOMAC at 24 months. In the subset of patients with initial clinical success at 12 months, 18 of 25 (72.0%) reported sustained clinical success at 24 months. Seven of 25 (28.0%) patients had symptom recurrence between 12 and 24 months and were determined to be clinical failures. All treatment-related adverse events occurred within 12 months after GAE, without additional events after 12 months. ConclusionsGAE is effective in achieving sustained symptom relief related to moderate-to-severe knee OA for up to 24 months with an acceptable safety profile.

Five-year Follow-up of a Prospective Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Trial Evaluating a PEEK-on-Ceramic Cervical Disc Replacement.

Prospective trial comparing the investigation group to propensity matched historic control group. To evaluate 5-year results of single-level PEEK-on-ceramic cervical total disc replacement (TDR) compared to a propensity matched anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) control group. Cervical TDR has gained acceptance as treatment for symptomatic disc degeneration. The design and materials used in these devices continue to evolve. Data were collected in the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial for the PEEK-on-ceramic Simplify(®) Cervical Artificial Disc (n=150) with comparison to a propensity matched ACDF control group (n=117). All patients were treated for single-level cervical disc degeneration with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical outcome was based on composite clinical success (CCS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing pain, re-operations, and satisfaction. Radiographic measures included segmental range of motion (ROM), disc space height, and heterotopic ossification (HO). Evaluations were performed pre-operatively and post-operatively within 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 months, and annually thereafter. At 5-year follow-up, CCS was significantly greater with TDR than ACDF (91.1% vs. 74.6%; P<0.01). In the TDR group, the mean NDI score was 63.3 pre-operatively, reduced significantly to 23.1 at 6 weeks and remained below 20 throughout 5-year follow-up. In the ACDF group, the mean pre-operative NDI score was 62.4, decreasing to 33.7 at 6 weeks, and ranged from 25.9 to 21.5 throughout follow-up. Mean NDI scores were significantly lower in TDR group at all post-operative points (P<0.05). Mean TDR ROM was 7.3o pre-operatively and 10.1o at 5 years. Bridging HO occurred in 9%. With TDR, there were 6 re-operations (4.0%) vs. 11 (9.4%) with ACDF (P>0.40). PEEK-on-ceramic TDR produced significantly improved outcomes maintained throughout 5-year follow-up, were similar or superior to ACDF, supporting TDR in appropriately selected patients.

P106. Disc to Disc: early results of the multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical investigational device exemption trial comparing a novel total disc replacement (TDR) to an approved TDR control at two contiguous levels of the cervical spine

P106. Disc to Disc: early results of the multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical investigational device exemption trial comparing a novel total disc replacement (TDR) to an approved TDR control at two contiguous levels of the cervical spine

Two-year follow-up of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.

In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid aortic stenosis. However, bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients were included only in single-arm registries of pivotal low-risk TAVR trials, resulting in limited data for this subgroup. The LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter study and the firstFDA-approved investigational device exemption trial to evaluate the feasibility of TAVR with balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe BAV stenosis. This analysis reports 2-year follow-up, assessing the primary outcome of all-cause mortality and evaluating clinical outcomes. From 2016 to 2019, a total of 72 low-risk patients diagnosed with symptomatic, severe BAV stenosis underwent TAVR across six centers. Six patients were lost to follow-up. At 2-year follow-up, mortality was 1.5% (1 of 66 patients). Among the remaining 65 patients, four experienced nondisabling strokes (6.2%), while 2 (3.1%) developed infective endocarditis. No new permanent pacemakers were required beyond the 30-day follow-up, and no patients, including those with endocarditis, needed aortic valve re-intervention. At the 2-year echocardiography follow-up (n = 65), 27.8% of BAV patients showed mild aortic regurgitation, with none exhibiting moderate or severe regurgitation. The mean aortic gradient was 12.1 ± 4.1 mmHg, and the mean valve area was 1.7 ± 0.5 cm². The 2-year follow-up confirms commendable clinical outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, establishing its evident safety.

The fragility index and reverse fragility index of FDA investigational device exemption trials in spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review.

FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) studies are considered a gold standard of assessing safety and efficacy of novel devices through RCTs. The fragility index (FI) has emerged as a means to assess robustness of statistically significant study results and inversely, the reverse fragility index (RFI) for non-significant differences. Previous authors have defined results as fragile if loss to follow up is greater than the FI or RFI. The aim of this study was to assess the FI, RFI, and robustness of data supplied by IDE studies in spinal surgery. This was a systematic review of the literature. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcome measures conducted under IDE guidelines between 2000 and 2023. FI and RFI were calculated through successively changing events to non-events until the outcome changed to non-significance or significance, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) were calculated by dividing the FI and RFI, respectively, by the sample size. Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 40 unique outcome measures; 240 outcomes were analyzed. Twenty-six studies reported 96 statistically significant results. The median FI was 6 (IQR: 3-9.25), and patients lost to follow up was greater than the FI in 99.0% (95/96) of results. The average FQ was 0.027. Thirty studies reported 144 statistically insignificant results and a median RFI of 6 (IQR: 4-8). The average RFQ extrapolated was 0.021, and loss to follow up was greater than the RFI in 98.6% (142/144) of results. IDE studies in spine surgery are surprisingly fragile given their reputations, large sample sizes, and intent to establish safety in investigational devices. This study found a median FI and RFI of 6. The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than FIand RFI in 98.8% (237/240) of reported outcomes. FQ and RFQ tell us that changes of two to three patients per hundred can flip the significance of reported outcomes. This is an important reminder of the limitations of RCTs. Analysis of fragility in future studies may help clarify the strength of the relationship between reported data and their conclusions.

Mitral Valve Replacement in Infants and Children: Five-Year Outcomes of the HALO Clinical Trial

BackgroundRepair is preferable for children with mitral valve disease, but mitral valve replacement (MVR) is occasionally necessary. This report presents the results of a multiinstitutional Investigational Device Exemption trial of the 15-mm St Jude (SJM) mechanical mitral valve (Abbott Structural Heart). MethodsFrom May 2015 to March 2017, 23 children aged 0.4 to 27.4 months (mean, 7.8 months; 85% <1 year) weighing 2.9 to 10.9 kg (mean, 5.5 kg) at 15 centers underwent MVR with a 15-mm SJM mechanical mitral valve (intraannular, 45%; supraannular, 55%). A total of 21 (91%) of the children had undergone previous cardiac operations. Follow-up until death, valve explantation, or 5 years postoperatively was 100% complete. ResultsThere were 6 deaths, all in the first 12 months; no death was valve related. Four patients required a pacemaker (2 supraannular, 2 intraannular). Three patients had thrombosis requiring valve explantation at 13, 21, and 35 days postoperatively. Two of these 3 patients were receiving low-molecular-weight heparin for anticoagulation, and the third had factor V Leiden deficiency. There were 5 nonfatal bleeding complications within 4 months of MVR (1-year freedom from bleeding, 71.0%). The 1- and 5-year freedom from death or valve explantation was 71.0%. ConclusionsIn small children with severe mitral valve disease requiring MVR, the 15-mm SJM mechanical mitral valve provides satisfactory hemodynamics. Mortality and complications in these patients are not trivial. Low-molecular-weight heparin likely should be avoided as primary anticoagulation. Eventual valve replacement is inevitable.

Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty Versus Fusion for Grade-I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Stenosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

The comparative effectiveness of decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty versus decompression plus instrumented lumbar spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis is unknown. In this randomized, controlled, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial, we assigned patients who had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis to undergo decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty (arthroplasty group) or decompression plus fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a predetermined composite clinical success score. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Short Form (SF)-12, radiographic parameters, surgical variables, and complications. A total of 321 adult patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with 219 patients assigned to undergo facet arthroplasty and 102 patients assigned to undergo fusion. Of these, 113 patients (51.6%) in the arthroplasty group and 47 (46.1%) in the fusion group who had either reached 24 months of postoperative follow-up or were deemed early clinical failures were included in the primary outcome analysis. The arthroplasty group had a higher proportion of patients who achieved composite clinical success than did the fusion group (73.5% versus 25.5%; p < 0.001), equating to a between-group difference of 47.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.0% to 62.8%). The arthroplasty group outperformed the fusion group in most patient-reported outcome measures (including the ODI, VAS back pain, and all ZCQ component scores) at 24 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in surgical variables or complications, except that the fusion group had a higher rate of developing symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration. Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of composite clinical success than fusion was at 24 months postoperatively. Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

National trends in utilization of surgeon-modified grafts for complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

IntroductionCustom-branched/fenestrated grafts are widely available in other countries, but in the United States, they are limited to a handful of centers, with the exception of a 3-vessel juxtarenal device (ZFEN). Consequently, many surgeons have turned to alternative strategies such as physician-modified endografts (PMEGs). We therefore sought to determine how widespread the use of these grafts is. MethodsWe studied all complex endovascular repairs of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2022 to examine temporal trends. ResultsA total of 5826 repairs were performed during the study period: 1895 ZFEN, 3241 PMEG, 595 parallel grafting, and 95 where parallel grafting was used in addition to ZFEN, with a mean of 2.7 ± 0.98 vessels incorporated. Over time, the number of PMEGs steadily increased, both overall and for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas the number of ZFENs essentially leveled off by 2017 and has remained steady ever since. In the most recent complete year (2021), PMEGs outnumbered ZFENs by over 2:1 overall (567 to 256) and nearly twofold for juxtarenal repairs. In three-vessel cases involving juxtarenal aneurysms, PMEGs were used as frequently as ZFENs (43% vs 43%), whereas the proportion of juxtarenal aneurysms repaired using a four-vessel graft configuration increased from 20% in 2014 to 29% in 2021 (P < .001). The differences in PMEG use were more pronounced as surgeon volume increased. Surgeons in the lowest quartile of volume performed <2 complex repairs annually, evenly split between PMEGs and ZFENs. However, surgeons in the highest quartile of volume performed a median of 18 (interquartile range: 10-21) PMEGs/y, but only 1.6 (interquartile range: 0.8-3.4) ZFENs/y. The number of physician-sponsored investigational device exemption trials of PMEGs has expanded from 1 in 2012 to 8 currently enrolling. As those data are not included in the Vascular Quality Initiative, the true number of PMEGs is likely substantially higher. ConclusionsPMEGs have become the dominant endovascular repair modality of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms outside of investigational device exemptions. The field of endovascular aortic surgery and patients with complex aneurysms would benefit from broader publication of PMEG techniques, outcomes, and comparisons to custom-manufactured grafts.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveThe high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal. MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival. ResultsOf the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038). ConclusionsFEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

Prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing the M6-C compressible cervical disc with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy: 5-year results of an FDA investigational device exemption study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTVarious total disc replacement (TDR) designs have been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with favorable short and long-term outcomes in FDA-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. The unique design of M6-C, with a compressible viscoelastic nuclear core and an annular structure, has previously demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes through 24 months. PURPOSETo evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the M6-C compressible artificial cervical disc and compare to ACDF at 5 years. STUDY DESIGNProspective, multicenter, concurrently and historically controlled, FDA-approved IDE clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLESubjects with one-level symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy were enrolled and received M6-C (n=160) or ACDF (n=189) treatment as part of the IDE study. Safety outcomes were evaluated at 5 years for all subjects. The primary effectiveness endpoint was available at 5 years for 113 M6-C subjects and 106 ACDF controls. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary endpoint of this analysis was composite clinical success (CCS) at 60 months. Secondary endpoints were function and pain (neck disability index, VAS), physical quality of life (SF-36, SF-12), safety, neurologic, and radiographic assessments. METHODSPropensity score subclassification was used to control for selection bias and match baseline covariates of the control group to the M6-C subjects. Sixty-month CCS rates were estimated for each treatment group using a generalized linear model controlling for propensity score. RESULTSAt 5 years postoperatively, the M6-C treatment resulted in 82.3% CCS while the ACDF group showed 67.0% CCS (superiority p=.013). Secondary endpoints indicated that significantly more M6-C subjects achieved VAS neck and arm pain improvements and showed maintained or improved physical functioning on quality-of-life measures compared to baseline assessments. The M6-C group-maintained flexion-extension motion, with significantly greater increases from baseline disc height and disc angle than observed in the control group. The rates of M6-C subsequent surgical interventions (SSI; 3.1%) and definitely device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (SAE failure; 3.1%) were similar to ACDF rates (SSI=5.3%, SAE failure=4.8%; p>.05 for both). CONCLUSIONSSubjects treated with the M6-C artificial disc demonstrated superior 5-year achievement of clinical success when compared to ACDF controls. In addition, significantly more subjects in the M6-C group showed improved pain and physical functioning scores than observed in ACDF subjects, with no difference in reoperation rates or safety outcomes.

EsophAguS Deviation During RadiofrequencY Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: The EASY AF Trial

BackgroundInjury to the esophagus has been reported in a high percentage of patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). ObjectivesThis study assessed the incidence of esophageal injury in patients undergoing ablation of AF with and without an esophageal deviating device. MethodsThis prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, controlled Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial compared the incidence of ablation-related esophageal lesions, as assessed by endoscopy, in patients undergoing AF ablation assigned to a control group (luminal esophageal temperature [LET] monitoring alone) compared with patients randomized to a deviation group (esophagus deviation device + LET). This novel deviating device uses vacuum suction and mechanical deflection to deviate a segment of the esophagus, including the trailing edge. ResultsThe data safety and monitoring board recommended stopping the study early after randomizing 120 patients due to deviating device efficacy. The primary study endpoint, ablation injury to the esophageal mucosa, was significantly less in the deviation group (5.7%) in comparison to the control group (35.4%; P < 0.0001). Control patients had a significantly higher severity and greater number of ablation lesions per patient. There was no adverse event assigned to the device. By multivariable analysis, the only feature associated with reduced esophageal lesions was randomization to deviating device (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.46; P = 0.001). Among control subjects, there was no difference in esophageal lesions with high power/short duration (31.8%) vs other radiofrequency techniques (37.2%; P = 0.79). ConclusionsThe use of an esophageal deviating device resulted in a significant reduction in ablation-related esophageal lesions without any adverse events.

Stemless Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval nearly two decades ago, the indications for and utilization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have expanded considerably. Stemless RSA designs have been used in Europe since 2005, but have only recently been introduced in domestic Investigational Device Exemption trials. Potential advantages of stemless RSA are similar to those of stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, which may include fewer shaft-related complications, avoidance of stress shielding, bone preservation, and easier revision surgery. European data support similar outcomes between certain stemless RSA prostheses compared with that of stemmed RSA implants at early and mid-term follow-up. However, long-term outcomes remain to be seen and differences exist between the stemless RSA designs used in Europe and those being studied in domestic clinical trials. An understanding of the potential advantages and disadvantages of stemless RSA, differences between existing designs, and reported clinical outcomes is prudent for the safe and meaningful implementation of this new technology in the United States.

Seven-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis

ObjectiveAs bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) extends to younger cohorts, tissue durability is of paramount importance. We report 7-year outcomes from an AVR bioprosthesis utilizing novel tissue. MethodsThis was an international investigational device exemption trial for novel AVR with annual follow-up and a subset re-consented at 5 years for extended 10-year follow-up. Safety end points and echocardiographic measurements were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee and by a dedicated core laboratory, respectively. ResultsBetween January 2013 and March 2016, 689 patients underwent AVR with the study valve. Mean age was 66.9 ± 11.6 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 2.0% ± 1.8%, and 74.3% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class II and III. Five-year follow-up was completed by 512 patients, and 225 re-consented for extended follow-up. Follow-up duration was 5.3 ± 2.2 years (3665.6 patient-years), and 194 and 195 patients completed 6- and 7-year follow-ups, respectively. One-, 5-, and 7-year freedom from all-cause mortality was 97.7%, 89.4%, and 85.4%, respectively. Freedom from structural valve deterioration at 7 years was 99.3%. At 7 years, effective orifice area and mean gradients were 1.82 ± 0.57 cm2 (n = 153), and 9.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg (n = 157), respectively. At 7 years, predominantly none (96.8% [152 out of 157]) or trivial/trace (2.5% [4 out of 157]) paravalvular regurgitation and none (84.7% [133 out of 157]) or trivial/trace (11.5% [18 out of 157]) transvalvular regurgitation were observed. ConclusionsWe report the longest surgical AVR follow-up with novel tissue in an investigational device exemption trial utilizing an independent clinical events committee and an echocardiography core laboratory. This tissue demonstrates excellent outcomes through 7 years and is the benchmark for future surgical and transcatheter prostheses.

3-Year Outcomes From the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Randomized Controlled Trial (Amulet IDE)

BackgroundThe Amulet (Abbott) left atrial appendage occluder investigational device exemption trial is the largest randomized trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Amulet left atrial appendage occluder compared with the Watchman 2.5 device (Boston Scientific) through 5 years. ObjectivesThis analysis evaluated the device effect on 3-year outcomes in the Amulet investigational device exemption trial. MethodsThe medication regimen and key clinical outcomes were reported through 3 years including: 1) the composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE); 2) the composite of all strokes, SE, or cardiovascular (CV) death; 3) major bleeding; and 4) all-cause death and CV death. ResultsA total of 1,878 patients at 108 sites were randomized. A significantly higher percentage of patients were free of oral anticoagulation usage at 3 years with Amulet (96.2%) vs Watchman (92.5%) (P < 0.01). Clinical outcomes were comparable for the composite of ischemic stroke or SE (5.0% vs 4.6%; P = 0.69); the composite of all strokes, SE, or CV death (11.1% vs 12.7%; P = 0.31); major bleeding (16.1% vs 14.7%; P = 0.46); all-cause death (14.6% vs 17.9%; P = 0.08); and CV death (6.6% vs 8.5%; P = 0.14) for Amulet and Watchman, respectively. Through 3 years, device factors (device-related thrombus or peridevice leak ≥3 mm) preceded ischemic stroke events and CV deaths more frequently in Watchman compared with Amulet patients. ConclusionsThe Amulet occluder demonstrated continued safety and effectiveness with over 96% free of oral anticoagulation usage through 3 years in a high-risk population compared to the Watchman device. (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder Trial [Amulet IDE]; NCT02879448)

Predictors and outcomes of spinal cord injury following complex branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in the US Aortic Research Consortium

ObjectiveSpinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a well-known complication of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair and is associated with profound morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe predictors for the development of SCI, as well as outcomes for patients who develop SCI, after branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair in a large cohort of centers with adjudicated physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies. MethodsWe used a pooled dataset from nine US Aortic Research Consortium centers involved in investigational device exemption trials for treatment of suprarenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. SCI was defined as new transient weakness (paraparesis) or permanent paraplegia after repair without other potential neurological etiologies. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of SCI, and life-table analysis and Kaplan-Meier methodologies were used to evaluate survival differences. ResultsA total of 1681 patients underwent branched/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair from 2005 to 2020. The overall rate of SCI was 7.1% (3.0% transient and 4.1% permanent). Predictors of SCI on multivariable analysis were Crawford Extent I, II, and III distribution of aortic disease (odds ratio [OR], 4.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-4.81; P < .001), age ≥70 years (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.63-1.64; P = .029), packed red blood cell transfusion (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.99-2.00; P = .001), and a history of peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.64-1.65; P = .034). The median survival was significantly worse for patients with any degree of SCI compared with those without SCI (any SCI, 40.4 vs no SCI, 60.3 months; log-rank P < .001), and also worse in those with a permanent deficit (24.1 months) vs those with a transient deficit (62.4 months) (log-rank P < .001). The 1-year survival for patients who developed no SCI was 90.8%, compared with 73.9% in patients who developed any SCI. When stratified by degree of deficit, survival was 84.8% at 1 year for those who developed paraparesis and 66.2% for those who developed permanent deficits. ConclusionsThe overall rates of any SCI at 7.1% and permanent deficit at 4.1% observed in this study compare favorably with those reported in contemporary literature. Our findings confirm that increased length of aortic disease is associated with SCI and those with Crawford Extent I to III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms are at highest risk. The long-term impact on patient mortality underscores the importance of preventive measures and rapid implementation of rescue protocols if and when deficits develop.

Hybrid epicardial and endocardial sinus node–sparing ablation therapy for inappropriate sinus tachycardia: Rationale and design of the multicenter HEAL-IST IDE trial

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) is defined as resting heart rate >100 beats/min and average 24-hour heart rate >90 beats/min. It is associated with distressing symptoms and significant loss of quality of life. Drugs are not effective in symptom control of IST in up to 30% of patients. Catheter ablation of the sinus node has a high recurrence rate, and the complications are significant. Recently, a novel hybrid sinus node-sparing ablation approach for IST was described. The objective of the Hybrid Epicardial and Endocardial Sinus Node Sparing Ablation Therapy for Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia (HEAL-IST) investigational device exemption trial (NCT05280093) is to evaluate safety and effectiveness of the hybrid sinus node-sparing ablation procedure for the treatment of symptomatic, drug-refractory or drug-intolerant IST. The HEAL-IST trial is a prospective, multicenter, pivotal, single-arm trial. Up to 142 subjects in up to 40 centers will be treated in the trial with a Bayesian adaptive design. Subjects will be assessed for primary safety through 30 days post-hybrid ablation procedure. The primary effectiveness endpoint will be freedom from IST at 12 months. Freedom from IST will be defined as mean heart rate of ≤90 beats/min or at least a 15% reduction in mean heart rate as compared with baseline, in the absence of new or higher dosage of previously failed medications at a 24-month follow-up assessment. The HEAL-IST trial is the first multicenter trial evaluating hybrid IST ablation in patients with symptomatic IST and refractory or intolerant to drugs. The results of this study will help guide decision making regarding the best management in this population.

499 Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Multicenter Study of Posterior Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis

INTRODUCTION: Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Multicenter Study of Posterior Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized, controlled Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial evaluating the investigational TOPS device to the control, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. Follow-up duration was a minimum twenty-four months. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were evaluated comparing the investigational TOPS group (n = 170) to the control TLIF group (n = 79. There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4-5 TOPS 95%; L4-5 TLIF 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group, 85%, compared to the fusion group, 64% (p = 0.0138). The percentage of subjects reporting minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.037) favoring TOPS (94.0%) over TLIF (79.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

Does valve size impact hemodynamic, left ventricular mass regression, and prosthetic valve deterioration with a sutureless aortic valve?

ObjectiveTo assess the mid-term clinical outcomes, hemodynamics, left ventricular (LV) mass regression, and structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients implanted with the Perceval aortic sutureless valve across valve sizes. MethodsData were obtained from a multicenter European trial and a US Investigational Device Exemption trial. Echocardiography data were analyzed by an echocardiography core lab. A mixed-effects regression model was used to assess relationships between hemodynamic outcomes, time from the procedure, and valve sizes. The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 definition for bioprosthetic valve failure was applied. ResultsA Perceval sutureless valve was implanted in 970 patients. The median patient age was 77.8 years, 57.2% were female, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicated risk of mortality was 3.3% (range, 2.1%-6.2%), and 33.4% had a concomitant procedure. The median clinical follow-up was 45.7 months (range, 28.2-76.1 months). Small and medium valves were implanted more commonly in women than in men (16.9% vs 1.9% for small and 55.1% vs 19.5% for medium; P < .001). The mean aortic valve gradients decreased significantly postimplantation and remained stable across all valve sizes throughout the follow-up period. All patients were free from severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (with an effective orifice area/m2 of >0.8). Significant LV mass regression was documented regardless valve sizes, plateaued at -9.1% at 5 years. Freedom from SVD and reintervention were 95.2% and 96.3%, respectively, at 5 years and were independent of implanted valve size (P = .22). The VARC-3 stage 3 bioprosthetic valve failure rate was low, 2.8% at 5 years. ConclusionsThe Perceval valve demonstrated low and stable mean gradients, significant LV mass regression, and low SVD and reintervention rates across all valve sizes.

A Decade of Improvement in Door‐to‐Puncture Times for Mechanical Thrombectomy But Ongoing Stagnation in Prehospital Care

Background Systems of care surrounding endovascular therapy for stroke have garnered much attention in recent years. In‐hospital metrics, such as “door‐to‐puncture” and procedure times have been areas for quality improvement. The temporal trend and clinical significance of prehospital “onset‐to‐door” time, however, remains unknown. Methods We performed a systematic review of time metric data from all published randomized controlled and investigational device exemption trials involving endovascular therapy for stroke between 2005 and 2019 (n=26). Second, we conducted a record‐level observational analysis on a total of 3512 patients from 3 real‐world registries (Mechanical Embolus Removal in Cerebral Ischemia [MERCI], Thrombectomy REvascularization of Large Vessel Occlusions in Acute Ischemic Stroke [TREVO], and TREVO Stent‐Retriever Acute Stroke [TRACK]), together with 4 prospective trials (MERCI trial, Multi‐MERCI, TREVO‐EU, and TREVO‐2). Only patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy within 9 hours from onset‐to‐puncture time were included. Predictors of good outcome were identified using generalized linear mixed modeling. Results Door‐to‐puncture times (slope=−5.83 min/y; R 2 =0.25; P =0.046), procedure times (slope=−3.78 min/y; R 2 =0.54; P &lt;0.001), and onset‐to‐reperfusion times (slope=−11.82 min/y; R 2 =0.57; P &lt;0.001) improved over the years among previously published randomized controlled trials/investigational device exemption trials from 2005 to 2019. The prehospital metric of onset‐to‐door time, however, remained statistically unchanged (slope=1.03 min/y; R 2 &lt;0.01; P =0.806). Pooled analysis from record‐level data demonstrated a similar temporal trend where door‐to‐puncture, procedure, and onset‐to‐reperfusion times declined by an average of 12 minutes (R 2 =0.45; P &lt;0.0001), 6 minutes (R 2 =0.27; P &lt;0.0001), and 8 minutes per year (R 2 =0.18; P &lt;0.0001), respectively, over a similar time period. Time from onset to door, however, did not improve (3.6 min/y; R 2 =0.34; P =0.005). In a backward‐selection regression model, onset‐to‐door time was found to be a significant predictor of patient outcomes, where every hour delay in hospital arrival correlated with a 14% reduction in the odds of a good outcome. Conclusions “Door‐to‐puncture” and procedure times have seen significant improvements over the past decade. The prehospital component of “onset‐to‐door” time, however, has remained stagnant. This presents an unrealized opportunity to enhance patient outcomes through improved systems of care in the prehospital setting.

Using the Evaluating Devices Using Claims and RegisTry Data (EDUCATe) Plan within the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) to Analyze the Long-Term Outcomes following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Implanted devices undergo clinical trials to assess their safety and effectiveness. However, pivotal device trials are limited in their follow-up while postmarket surveillance may incompletely capture late failure. Linking clinical trials to Medicare claims can address these limitations. This study matched patients from investigational device exemption (IDE) clinical trials for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) to Medicare claims-based registry data to compare long-term device outcomes between the 2 sources. Patient-level data from 2 industry-sponsored IDE trials of EVAR devices was provided by a single industry partner. Trial data were matched at the patient level to data from the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION), a registry that is a part of the Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization. The primary outcomes analyzed were survival and freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention. Of 159 clinical trial patients, 134 were eligible for claims-based matching and 115 (85.5%) were successfully matched to VISION registry data. For the matched cohort, the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 94.8% at 1year, 82.6% at 3years, and 68.1% at 5years. Estimates for freedom from reintervention were 90% at 1year, 82.4% at 3years, and 78.1% at 5years. The estimates for survival were nearly identical between the clinical trial data and that found in the VISION data (log-rank P=0.89). Freedom from reintervention was similar between the groups, with IDE trial reported freedom from reintervention of 87.3% and 73.3%, compared to VISION of 92.6% and 83% at 1 and 5years, respectively (log-rank P=0.13). Clinical trial patients who undergo EVAR can be successfully matched to claims-based registry data to improve long-term device surveillance and outcomes reporting. Claims-based results agreed well with IDE trial results for patients through 5years, supporting the accuracy of claims-based data for longer-term surveillance. Linking clinical trial and claims-based registry data can lead to robust device monitoring.