Investigational Device Exemption Research Articles

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.

Cross-Seal IDE Trial: Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of the Cross-Seal Suture-Mediated Vascular Closure Device System.

An increasing number of interventional procedures require large-sheath technology (>12F) with a favorable outcome with endovascular rather than open surgical access. However, vascular complications are a limitation for the management of these patients. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device in obtaining hemostasis at the target limb access site following interventional procedures using 8F to 18F procedural sheaths. The Cross-Seal IDE trial (Investigational Device Exemption) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study in subjects undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheaths. The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis at the target limb access site. The primary safety end point was freedom from major complications of the target limb access site within 30 days post procedure. A total of 147 subjects were enrolled between August 9, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 53.7% (79/147) and percutaneous endovascular abdominal/thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 46.3% (68/147) of subjects. The mean sheath ID was 15.5±1.8 mm. The primary effectiveness end point of time to hemostasis was 0.4±1.4 minutes. An adjunctive intervention was required in 9.2% (13/142) of subjects, of which 2.1% (3/142) were surgical and 5.6% (8/142) endovascular. Technical success was achieved in 92.3% (131/142) of subjects. Freedom from major complications of the target limb access site was 94.3% (83/88). In selected patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheath, Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device achieved favorable effectiveness and safety in the closure of the large-bore arteriotomy. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03756558.

Effect of Family History of Aortic Disease on Outcomes of Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

The clinical significance of family history (FH) of aortic disease on the outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FB-EVAR) has not been well described. This study aimed to assess how FH of aortic disease affects outcomes following FB-EVAR for complex aortic aneurysms (CAAs). This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients enrolled in 10 ongoing, prospective, non-randomised, physician sponsored, investigational device exemption studies to evaluate FB-EVAR (2005 - 2022) in the United States Aortic Research Consortium database. Patients were stratified by presence or absence of FH of any aortic disease in any relative. Patients with confirmed genetically triggered aortic diseases were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30 day major adverse events (MAEs) and late survival. Secondary outcomes included late secondary interventions and aneurysm sac enlargement. During the study period, 2 901 patients underwent FB-EVAR. A total of 2 355 patients (81.2%) were included in the final analysis: 427 (18.1%) with and 1 928 (81.9%) without FH of aortic disease. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and aneurysm extent were similar between the groups. Patients with FH of aortic disease more frequently had prior open abdominal aortic repair, but less frequently had prior endovascular aneurysm repair (p < .050). There were no statistically significant differences in 30 day mortality (4% vs. 2%; p = .12) and MAEs for patients with or without FH of aortic disease (12% vs. 12%; p = .89). Three year survival estimates were 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 - 0.78%) and 71% (95% CI 0.68 - 0.74%), respectively (p = .74). Freedom from secondary intervention and aneurysm sac enlargement were also not statistically significantly different between groups. A family history of aortic disease had no impact on 30 day and midterm outcomes of FB-EVAR of CAAs. In the absence of an identified genetically triggered aortic disease, treatment selection for CAAs should be based on clinical risk and patient anatomy rather than FH of aortic disease.

Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Miniaturized Robotic-Assisted Surgery System in Colectomy: A Prospective, Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Study Using the IDEAL Framework.

Robotics has increased rates of minimally invasive surgery, with distinct advantages over open surgery. However, current commercially available robotic platforms have device and system issues that limit robotic-assisted surgery expansion. To demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturized robotic-assisted surgery device in colectomy. Prospective, Investigational Device Exemption clinical study following the idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term follow-up framework (stage 2b, exploration). Three centers with high-volume robotic colorectal cases and surgeons. Patients scheduled for a right or left colectomy for benign or malignant disease. Colectomy with the novel miniaturized robotic-assisted surgery device. For safety, intraoperative and device-related adverse events and 30-day morbidity. For efficacy, successful completion of predefined procedural steps without conversion. Thirty patients (13 women, 17 men) were analyzed. The mean age was 59.4 (SD 13.4) years. Seventy percent of patients (n = 21) were overweight/obese and 53.3% of patients (n = 16) had prior abdominal surgery. Forty percent of patients had malignant and 60% had benign disease. Cases were 15 right and 15 left colectomies. Overall operative time was a median of 146 (range, 80-309) minutes; console time was 70 (range, 34-174) minutes. There were no conversions to open surgery and no intraoperative or device-related adverse events. In 100% of patients (n = 30), the primary dissection was completed, and hemostasis was maintained with the novel miniaturized robotic-assisted surgery device. The morbidity rate was 26.7% minor and 3.3% major. The median length of stay was 2 days. There were no mortalities. Single-arm study, short-term follow-up. This first clinical study of a novel miniaturized robotic-assisted surgery device along the IDEAL framework demonstrated that it was safe and effective. Given this success, further assessment and long-term follow-up of the miniaturized robotic-assisted surgery device are planned for comparative clinical and economic effectiveness in colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract . ANTECEDENTES:La robótica ha aumentado las tasas de cirugía mínimamente invasiva, con claras ventajas sobre la cirugía abierta. Sin embargo, las plataformas robóticas actualmente disponibles comercialmente tienen problemas con los dispositivos y sistemas que limitan la expansión de la cirugía asistida por robot.OBJETIVO:Demostrar la seguridad y eficacia de un novedoso dispositivo de cirugía asistida por robot miniaturizado en colectomía.DISEÑO:Estudio clínico prospectivo de investigación de exención de dispositivo siguiendo el marco IDEAL (Etapa 2b, exploración).ESCENARIO:Tres centros con cirujanos y casos colorrectales robóticos de gran volumen.PACIENTES:Pacientes programados para colectomía derecha o izquierda por enfermedad benigna o maligna.INTERVENCIÓN:Colectomía con el nuevo dispositivo de cirugía asistida por robot miniaturizado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Para la seguridad, eventos adversos intraoperatorios y relacionados con el dispositivo y morbilidad a 30 días. Para la evaluación de la eficacia, la finalización exitosa de los pasos predefinidos sin conversión.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron treinta pacientes (13 mujeres, 17 hombres). La edad media fue 59,4 (DE 13,4) años. El 70% (n=21) tenía sobrepeso/obesidad y el 53,3% (n=16) había tenido cirugía abdominal previa. El 40% tenía enfermedad maligna y el 60% benigna. Los casos fueron 15 colectomías derechas y 15 izquierdas. La mediana del tiempo operatorio general fue de 146 (rango, 80-309) minutos; 70 (rango, 34-174) minutos fue el tiempo de consola. No hubo conversiones a cirugía abierta ni eventos adversos intraoperatorios o relacionados con el dispositivo. En el 100% (n=30), se completó la disección primaria y se mantuvo la hemostasia con el novedoso dispositivo de cirugía asistida por robot miniaturizado. La tasa de morbilidad menor fue de un 26,7% y mayor un 3,3%. La mediana de estadía fue de 2 días. No hubo mortalidad.LIMITACIONES:Estudio de un solo brazo, corto plazo de seguimiento.CONCLUSIONES:Este primer estudio clínico de un novedoso dispositivo de cirugía asistida por robot miniaturizado según el marco IDEAL demostró que era seguro y eficaz. Dado este éxito, se planean evaluaciones adicionales y seguimiento a largo plazo del dispositivo de cirugía asistida por robot miniaturizado para comparar la efectividad clínica y económica en la cirugía colorrectal. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Five-year outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms based on aneurysm extent

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms stratified by the aneurysm extent. MethodsPatients with the diagnosis of complex aortic aneurysm, who underwent F/BEVAR at a single center were included in this study and retrospectively analyzed. The cohort was divided according to the aneurysm extent, comparing group 1 (types I-III thoracoabdominal aneurysms [TAAAs]), group 2 (type IV TAAAs), and group 3 (juxtarenal [JRAAs], pararenal [PRAAs], or paravisceral [PVAAs] aortic aneurysms). The primary endpoints were 30-day and 5-year survival. The secondary endpoints were technical success, occurrence of spinal cord ischemia, primary patency of the visceral arteries, freedom from target vessel instability, and secondary interventions. ResultsOf 436 patients who underwent F/BEVAR between July 2012 and May 2023, 131 presented with types I to III TAAAs, 69 with type IV TAAAs, and 236 with JRAAs, PRAAs, or PVAAs. All cases were treated under a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption protocol with a patient-specific company-manufactured or off-the-shelf device. Group 1 had significantly younger patients than group 2 or 3 respectively (69.6 ± 8.7 vs 72.4 ± 7.1 vs 73.2 ± 7.3 years; P < .001) and had a higher percentage of females (50.4% vs 21.7% vs 17.8%; P < .001). Prior history of aortic dissection was significantly more common among patients in group 1 (26% vs 1.4% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and mean aneurysm diameter was larger in group 1 (64.5 vs 60.7 vs 63.2 mm; P = .033). Comorbidities were similar between groups, except for coronary artery disease (P < .001) and tobacco use (P = .003), which were less prevalent in group 1. Technical success was similar in the three groups (98.5% vs 98.6% vs 98.7%; P > .99). The 30-day mortality was 4.5%, 1.4%, and 0.4%, in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and was significantly higher in group 1 when compared with group 3 (P = .01). The incidence of spinal cord ischemia was significantly higher in group 1 compared with group 3 (5.3% vs 4.3% vs 0.4%; P = .004). The 5-year survival was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .01). Freedom from secondary intervention was significantly higher in group 3 when compared with group 1 (P = .003). At 5 years, there was no significant difference in freedom from target vessel instability between groups or primary patency in the 1652 target vessels examined. ConclusionsLarger aneurysm extent was associated with lower 5-year survival, higher 30-day mortality, incidence of secondary interventions, and spinal cord ischemia. The prevalence of secondary interventions in all groups makes meticulous follow-up paramount in patients with complex aortic aneurysm treated with F/BEVAR.

Predictors and Trends of New Permanent Pacemaker Implantation: A Subanalysis of the International Navitor IDE Study

BackgroundThe Navitor Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study is a prospective, multicenter, global study assessing the safety and effectiveness of the Navitor valve in a population with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high and extreme surgical risk. The impact of pre-existing conduction abnormalities and implantation technique on new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) for the Navitor platform is not fully understood. Therefore, the goal of this analysis was to investigate the associations between patient and procedural factors and the 30-day new PPI rate. MethodsA total of 260 patients who underwent implantation of a Navitor valve in the Navitor IDE study were reviewed. Patients with preprocedural permanent pacemakers (n = 28) were excluded. Baseline risk factors were assessed for statistical significance. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of new PPI. ResultsMean age of the pacemaker-naïve population was 83.3 ± 5.2 years, 58.6% were female, average Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.8% ± 1.9%, median frailty score was 1 (interquartile range 1, 2), and 17.7% were deemed at extreme surgical risk. Pre-existing first-degree atrioventricular block and right bundle branch block significantly increased the risk of new PPI postimplantation, whereas left bundle branch block did not. Membranous septum length in relation to noncoronary cusp implant depth was a significant predictor of new PPI, with higher rates of new PPI observed when noncoronary cusp implant depth exceeded membranous septum length. Analysis of implant depth alone revealed deeper implants were associated with a higher rate of new PPI, regardless of patient baseline conduction abnormality. ConclusionsThe 30-day rate of new PPI in the Navitor IDE study is associated with patient pre-existing baseline conduction disturbances and implantation depth.

FLASH radiotherapy for the treatment of symptomatic bone metastases in the thorax (FAST-02): protocol for a prospective study of a novel radiotherapy approach

BackgroundFLASH therapy is a treatment technique in which radiation is delivered at ultra-high dose rates (≥ 40 Gy/s). The first-in-human FAST-01 clinical trial demonstrated the clinical feasibility of proton FLASH in the treatment of extremity bone metastases. The objectives of this investigation are to assess the toxicities of treatment and pain relief in study participants with painful thoracic bone metastases treated with FLASH radiotherapy, as well as workflow metrics in a clinical setting.MethodsThis single-arm clinical trial is being conducted under an FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) approved for 10 patients with 1–3 painful bone metastases in the thorax, excluding bone metastases in the spine. Treatment will be 8 Gy in a single fraction administered at ≥ 40 Gy/s on a FLASH-enabled proton therapy system delivering a single transmission proton beam. Primary study endpoints are efficacy (pain relief) and safety. Patient questionnaires evaluating pain flare at the treatment site will be completed for 10 consecutive days post-RT. Pain response and adverse events (AEs) will be evaluated on the day of treatment and on day 7, day 15, months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12, and every 6 months thereafter. The outcomes for clinical workflow feasibility are the occurrence of any device issues as well as time on the treatment table.DiscussionThis prospective clinical trial will provide clinical data for evaluating the efficacy and safety of proton FLASH for palliation of bony metastases in the thorax. Positive findings will support the further exploration of FLASH radiation for other clinical indications including patient populations treated with curative intent.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05524064.

Paired Comparison Survey Analysis Utilizing Rasch Methodology of the Relative Difficulty and Estimated Work Relative Value Units of CPT Code 0202T.

In anticipation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) system, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) conducted a study to estimate the work relative value units (RVUs) for facet arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to establish a valuation of work RVU for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Code 0202T in the interim until the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) can determine an appropriate value. The valuation established from this survey will assist surgeons to establish appropriate procedure reimbursement from third-party payers. A survey was created and sent to 52 surgeons who had experience implanting the TOPS system during the investigational device exemption clinical trial. The survey included a patient vignette, a description of CPT Code 0202T along with a video of the TOPS system, and a confirmation question about the illustration's effectiveness. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in CPT Code 0202T to 8 lumbar spine procedures. A Rasch analysis was performed to estimate the relative difficulty of CPT 0202T using the work RVUs of the comparable procedures. Forty-one surgeons responded to the survey. Of all the procedures, CPT Code 0202T received the most responses for equal work compared with posterior osteotomy (46%) followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (41%). The results of the regression analysis indicate a work RVU for CPT 0202T of 39.47. The study found an estimated work RVU of 39.47 for CPT Code 0202T using Rasch analysis. As an alternative to this Rasch methodology, one may consider a crosswalk methodology to the work RVUs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedurally, not as an alternative code. These recommendations are not a substitute for RUC methodology but serve as a reference for physicians and third-party payers to understand work RVU similarities for charge and payment purposes temporarily until RUC methodology provides accurate RVUs for the procedure.

Discussion to: Branched stented anastomosis frozen elephant trunk repair (B-SAFER): Early results from a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study

Discussion to: Branched stented anastomosis frozen elephant trunk repair (B-SAFER): Early results from a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study

Product Development within the National Institutes of Health Radiation and Nuclear Countermeasures Program.

The Radiation and Nuclear Countermeasures Program (RNCP) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH) was established to facilitate the development of medical countermeasures (MCMs) and diagnostic approaches for use in a radiation public health emergency. Approvals for MCMs can be very challenging but are made possible under the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Animal Rule, which is designed to enable licensure of drugs or biologics when clinical efficacy studies are unethical or unfeasible. The NIAID portfolio includes grants, contracts, and inter-agency agreements designed to span all aspects of drug development and encompasses basic research through FDA approval. In addition, NIAID manages an active portfolio of biodosimetry approaches to assess injuries and absorbed radiation levels to guide triage and treatment decisions. NIAID, together with grantees, contractors, and other stakeholders with promising products, works to advance candidate MCMs and biodosimetry tools through an established product development pipeline. In addition to managing grants and contracts, NIAID tests promising candidates in our established preclinical animal models, and the NIAID Program Officers work closely with sponsors as product managers to guide them through the process. In addition, a valuable benefit for stakeholders is working with the NIAID Office of Regulatory Affairs, where NIAID coordinates with the FDA to facilitate interactions between sponsors and the agency. Activities funded by NIAID include basic research (e.g., library screens to discover new products, determine early efficacy, and delineate mechanism of action) and the development of small and large animal models of radiation-induced hematopoietic, gastrointestinal, lung, kidney, and skin injury, radiation combined injury, and radionuclide decorporation. NIAID also sponsors Good Laboratory Practice product safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and toxicology studies, as well as efficacy and dose-ranging studies to optimize product regimens. For later-stage candidates, NIAID funds large-scale manufacturing and formulation development of products. The program also supports Phase 1 human clinical studies to ensure human safety and to bridge pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and efficacy data from animals to humans. To date, NIAID has supported >900 animal studies and one clinical study, evaluating >500 new/repurposed radiation MCMs and biodosimetric approaches. NIAID sponsorship led to the approval of three of the six drugs for acute radiation syndrome under the FDA Animal Rule, five Investigational New Drug applications, and 18 additional submissions for Investigational Device Exemptions, while advancing 38 projects to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for follow-on research and development.

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.

A prospective study of lumbar facet arthroplasty in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis: cost-effective assessment from the Total Posterior Spine system (TOPSTM) IDE Study: 2-year model revision and sensitivity analyses based on 305 subjects

BACKGROUND CONTEXTA previous cost-effectiveness analysis published in 2022 found that the Total Posterior Spine (TOPSTM) system was dominant over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This analysis required updating to reflect a more complete dataset and pricing considerations. PURPOSETo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPSTM system as compared with TLIF based on an updated and complete FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) data set. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGCost-utility analysis of the TOPSTM system compared to TLIF. PATIENT SAMPLEA multicenter, FDA IDE, randomized control trial (RCT) investigated the efficacy of TOPSTM compared to TLIF with a current population of n=305 enrolled and n=168 with complete 2-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURESCost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated to determine our primary outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcome measures included: net monetary benefit as well at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. METHODSThe primary outcome of cost-effectiveness is determined by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A Markov model was used to simulate the health outcomes and costs of patients undergoing TOPSTM or TLIF over a 2-year period. alternative scenario sensitivity analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results. RESULTSThe updated base case result demonstrated that TOPSTM was immediately and longitudinally dominant compared with the control with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of −9,637.37 $/QALY. The net monetary benefit was correspondingly $2,237, both from the health system's perspective and at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY at the 2-year time point. This remained true in all scenarios tested. The Alternative Scenario Sensitivity Analysis suggested cost-effectiveness irrespective of payer type and surgical setting. To remain cost-effective, the cost difference between TOPSTM and TLIF should be no greater than $1,875 and $3,750 at WTP thresholds of $50,000 and 100,000 $/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONSThis updated analysis confirms that the TOPSTM device is a cost-effective and economically dominant surgical treatment option for patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis compared to TLIF in all scenarios examined.

Amplitude-determined seizure-threshold, electric field modeling, and electroconvulsive therapy antidepressant and cognitive outcomes

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) pulse amplitude, which dictates the induced electric field (E-field) magnitude in the brain, is presently fixed at 800 or 900 milliamperes (mA) without clinical or scientific rationale. We have previously demonstrated that increased E-field strength improves ECT’s antidepressant effect but worsens cognitive outcomes. Amplitude-determined seizure titration may reduce the E-field variability relative to fixed amplitude ECT. In this investigation, we assessed the relationships among amplitude-determined seizure-threshold (STa), E-field magnitude, and clinical outcomes in older adults (age range 50 to 80 years) with depression. Subjects received brain imaging, depression assessment, and neuropsychological assessment pre-, mid-, and post-ECT. STa was determined during the first treatment with a Soterix Medical 4×1 High Definition ECT Multi-channel Stimulation Interface (Investigation Device Exemption: G200123). Subsequent treatments were completed with right unilateral electrode placement (RUL) and 800 mA. We calculated Ebrain defined as the 90th percentile of E-field magnitude in the whole brain for RUL electrode placement. Twenty-nine subjects were included in the final analyses. Ebrain per unit electrode current, Ebrain/I, was associated with STa. STa was associated with antidepressant outcomes at the mid-ECT assessment and bitemporal electrode placement switch. Ebrain/I was associated with changes in category fluency with a large effect size. The relationship between STa and Ebrain/I extends work from preclinical models and provides a validation step for ECT E-field modeling. ECT with individualized amplitude based on E-field modeling or STa has the potential to enhance neuroscience-based ECT parameter selection and improve clinical outcomes.

Comparative Safety of Pulsed Field Ablation and Cryoballoon Ablation Technologies for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Critical Literature Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison.

Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a standard catheter ablation technology with demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF); however, it can be associated with major adverse events, including phrenic nerve paralysis. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, minimally thermal technology with comparable effectiveness and low safety risk. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of PFA and CBA through critical analyses of the literature and indirect treatment comparisons. Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Registered clinical trials and/or Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption (FDA IDE) studies evaluating PFA or CBA in adult patients with drug-refractory PAF between January 2008 and March 2023 were selected. Comparative safety between PFA and CBA was assessed for major and prespecified adverse events. Indirect comparisons were conducted using the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events and confirmed with single-arm meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses. Data were extracted from three PFA publications including a total of 497 patients and six CBA studies including a total of 1113 patients. The analysis revealed that PFA was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse events {risk difference-4.3% [95% confidence interval (CI)-5.8,-2.8]; risk ratio 0.16 [95% CI 0.07, 0.45]} and prespecified adverse events [risk difference -2.5% (95% CI-4.4,-0.5); risk ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.31, 0.96)]. Meta-analyses confirmed the lower rate of major adverse events for PFA [0.4% (95% CI 0.0, 1.3)] vs. CBA [5.6% (95% CI 2.6, 8.6)] and prespecified adverse events for PFA [2.7% (95% CI 1.2, 4.1)] vs. CBA [5.8% (95% CI 2.7, 9.0)]. Sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity across studies confirmed robustness of the main analyses. The findings of this study show that PFA has a more favorable safety profile than CBA, with significantly lower risks of major and prespecified adverse events. These indirect comparisons help contextualize the safety of PFA compared to CBA for the treatment of drug-refractory PAF in the absence of head-to-head studies.

A Prospective Trial of Single-Fraction Radiation to the Tumor Bed with a Novel Breast-Specific Stereotactic Radiation Therapy Device: The GammaPod

IntroductionRadiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer is typically delivered in a hypofractionated regimen to the whole breast followed by a tumor bed boost. This results in a treatment course of approximately 4 weeks. In this study, the tumor bed boost was delivered in a single fraction as part of a safety and feasibility study for FDA clearance of the device. Materials and MethodsEligible women with early-stage breast cancer underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. Patients underwent breast immobilization using a system specific for the GammaPod followed by CT simulation, boost treatment planning, and boost treatment delivery all in a single treatment day. Patients then started whole-breast radiation therapy within 1 week of the boost treatment. Patients and treatments were assessed for safety and feasibility. Acute toxicities were recorded. ResultsA single-fraction boost of 8 Gy was delivered to the tumor bed prior to a course of whole-breast radiation. The GammaPod treatment was successfully delivered in 14 of 17 enrolled patients. Acute toxicities from all radiation therapy, inclusive of the boost and whole-breast radiation, were limited to grade 1 events. ConclusionThe GammaPod device successfully delivered a single-fraction boost treatment to the tumor bed with no change in expected acute toxicities. The results of this study led to FDA clearance of the device through the Investigational Device Exemption process at the FDA. The GammaPod is in clinical use at 4 institutions nationally and internationally, with an additional sites pending in 2023.

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.

Methodological and analytical considerations for intra-operative microdialysis

BackgroundMicrodialysis is a technique that can be utilized to sample the interstitial fluid of the central nervous system (CNS), including in primary malignant brain tumors known as gliomas. Gliomas are mainly accessible at the time of surgery, but have rarely been analyzed via interstitial fluid collected via microdialysis. To that end, we obtained an investigational device exemption for high molecular weight catheters (HMW, 100 kDa) and a variable flow rate pump to perform microdialysis at flow rates amenable to an intra-operative setting. We herein report on the lessons and insights obtained during our intra-operative HMW microdialysis trial, both in regard to methodological and analytical considerations.MethodsIntra-operative HMW microdialysis was performed during 15 clinically indicated glioma resections in fourteen patients, across three radiographically diverse regions in each patient. Microdialysates were analyzed via targeted and untargeted metabolomics via ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.ResultsUse of albumin and lactate-containing perfusates impacted subsets of metabolites evaluated via global metabolomics. Additionally, focal delivery of lactate via a lactate-containing perfusate, induced local metabolic changes, suggesting the potential for intra-operative pharmacodynamic studies via reverse microdialysis of candidate drugs. Multiple peri-operatively administered drugs, including levetiracetam, cefazolin, caffeine, mannitol and acetaminophen, could be detected from one microdialysate aliquot representing 10 min worth of intra-operative sampling. Moreover, clinical, radiographic, and methodological considerations for performing intra-operative microdialysis are discussed.ConclusionsIntra-operative HMW microdialysis can feasibly be utilized to sample the live human CNS microenvironment, including both metabolites and drugs, within one surgery. Certain variables, such as perfusate type, must be considered during and after analysis.Trial registration NCT04047264

Primary results from the CLEAR study of a novel stent retriever with drop zone technology

BackgroundChallenges to revascularization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) persist. Current stent retrievers have limited effectiveness for removing organized thrombi. The NeVa device is a novel stent retriever designed to capture...

Phase I Safety and Feasibility Pilot of Hepatic Artery Infusion Chemotherapy in a Rural Catchment Area Using The Codman Vascular Catheter with The Medtronic SynchroMed II Pump for Intrahepatic Cancers.

Discontinuation of the Codman 3000 pump in 2018 left no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved hepatic artery infusion (HAI) device for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (uCLM) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (uIHC). Historically, HAI has been performed at academic medical centers in large metropolitan areas, which are often inaccessible to rural patients. Consequently, feasibility of dissemination of HAI to rural populations is unknown. Under an FDA investigational device exemption, we opened the only HAI program in Kentucky and enrolled patients with uCLM and uIHC in a phase I clinical trial. The trial examined the safety of the hybrid Codman catheter/Medtronic SynchroMed II pump (hCMP) combination, defined as successful completion of one cycle of HAI chemotherapy. Rural feasibility was assessed by number of missed pump fills appointments. A total of 21 patients (n = 17uCLM, n = 4uIHC) underwent hCMP implantation before accrual was stopped early owing to FDA approval of the Intera 3000 pump. 20/21 (95%) patients met the primary safety endpoint. Serious adverse events (AEs) included a grade 5 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection (n = 1) and a grade 3 catheter erosion into the bowel (n = 1). Biliary sclerosis developed in two patients (9.5%). Median distance to infusion center was 47.6 miles (2-138 miles), and 62% were from Appalachia, yet there were no missed pump fill appointments. The 2-year overall survival was 82.4% (uCLM) and 50% (uIHC). The hCMP device had an acceptable safety profile. Despite the complexity of starting a new HAI program, early results showed feasibility for HAI delivery in a rural catchment area and comparable outcomes to larger urban-based HAI centers.

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.