Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for coronary revascularisation guidance (FAVOR III Europe): a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are recommended to assess functional relevance of intermediate coronary stenosis. Both diagnostic methods require the placement of a pressure wire in the coronary artery during invasive coronary angiography. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based computational method for the estimation of FFR that does not require the use of pressure wires. We aimed to investigate whether a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with an FFR-based strategy. FAVOR III Europe was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing a QFR-based with an FFR-based diagnostic strategy for patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. Enrolment was performed in 34 centres across 11 European countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with either chronic coronary syndrome or stabilised acute coronary syndrome, and with at least one intermediate non-culprit stenosis (40-90% diameter stenosis by visual estimate; referred to here as a study lesion), were randomly assigned (1:1) to the QFR-guided or the FFR-guided group. Randomisation was done using a concealed web-based system and was stratified by diabetes and presence of a left anterior descending coronary artery study lesion. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularisation at 12 months. The predefined non-inferiority margin was 3·4% and the primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03729739) and long-term follow-up is ongoing. Between Nov 6, 2018, and July 21, 2023, 2000 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the QFR-guided strategy (1008 patients) or the FFR-guided strategy (992 patients). The median age was 67·3 years (IQR 59·9-74·7); 1538 (76·9%) patients were male and 462 (23·1%) were female. Median follow-up time was 365 days (IQR 365-365). At 12 months, a primary endpoint event had occurred in 67 (6·7%) patients in the QFR group, and in 41 (4·2%) patients in the FFR group (hazard ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·11-2·41]). The event proportion difference was 2·5% (90% two-sided CI 0·9-4·2). The upper limit of the 90% CI exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 3·4%. Therefore, QFR did not meet non-inferiority to FFR. A total of 18 (1·8%) patients in each group experienced an adverse procedural event, the most frequent being procedure-related myocardial infarction, which occurred in ten (1·0%) patients in the QFR group and seven (0·7%) in the FFR group. One patient in the QFR group died in relation to the index procedure. The results of the FAVOR III Europe trial do not support the use of QFR if FFR is available to guide revascularisation decisions in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. This finding could have implications for current clinical guidelines recommending QFR for this purpose. Medis Medical Imaging Systems and Aarhus University.

Andersen BK ，Sejr-Hansen M ，Maillard L ，Campo G ，Råmunddal T ，Stähli BE ，Guiducci V ，Serafino LD ，Escaned J ，Santos IA ，López-Palop R ，Landmesser U ，Dieu RS ，Mejía-Rentería H ，Koltowski L ，Žiubrytė G ，Cetran L ，Adjedj J ，Abdelwahed YS ，Liu T ，Mogensen LJH ，Eftekhari A ，Westra J ，Lenk K ，Casella G ，Van Belle E ，Biscaglia S ，Olsen NT ，Knaapen P ，Kochman J ，Santos RC ，Scarsini R ，Christiansen EH ，Holm NR ... -  《-》

TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and compl

Patients with severe aortic stenosis present frequently (∼50%) with concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease. Current guidelines recommend combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred treatment. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent a valid treatment alternative. We aimed to test the non-inferiority of FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI versus SAVR plus CABG in patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease. This international, multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial was conducted at 18 tertiary medical centres across Europe. Patients (aged ≥70 years) with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease, deemed feasible for percutaneous or surgical treatment according to the on-site Heart Team, were randomly assigned (1:1) to FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI or SAVR plus CABG according to a computer-generated sequence with random permuted blocks sizes stratified by site. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, clinically driven target-vessel revascularisation, valve reintervention, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year post-treatment. The trial was powered for non-inferiority (with a margin of 15%) and if met, for superiority. The primary and safety analyses were done per an intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03424941) and is closed. Between May 31, 2018, and June 30, 2023, 172 patients were enrolled, of whom 91 were assigned to the FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI group and 81 to the SAVR plus CABG group. The mean age of patients was 76·5 years (SD 3·9). 118 (69%) of 172 patients were male and 54 (31%) patients were female. FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI resulted in favourable outcomes for the primary endpoint (four [4%] of 91 patients) versus SAVR plus CABG (17 [23%] of 77 patients; risk difference -18·5 [90% CI -27·8 to -9·7]), which was below the 15% prespecified non-inferiority margin (pnon-inferiority<0·001). FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI was superior to SAVR plus CABG (hazard ratio 0·17 [95% CI 0·06-0·51]; psuperiority<0·001), which was driven mainly by all-cause mortality (none [0%] of 91 patients vs seven (10%) of 77 patients; p=0·0025) and life-threatening bleeding (two [2%] vs nine [12%]; p=0·010). The TCW trial is the first trial to compare percutaneous treatment versus surgical treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease, showing favourable primary endpoint and mortality outcomes with percutaneous treatment. Isala Heart Centre and Medtronic.

Kedhi E ，Hermanides RS ，Dambrink JE ，Singh SK ，Ten Berg JM ，van Ginkel D ，Hudec M ，Amoroso G ，Amat-Santos IJ ，Andreas M ，Campante Teles R ，Bonnet G ，Van Belle E ，Conradi L ，van Garsse L ，Wojakowski W ，Voudris V ，Sacha J ，Cervinka P ，Lipsic E ，Somi S ，Nombela-Franco L ，Postma S ，Piayda K ，De Luca G ，Kolkman E ，Malinowski KP ，Modine T ，TCW study group ... -  《-》

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

Marson AG ，Burnside G ，Appleton R ，Smith D ，Leach JP ，Sills G ，Tudur-Smith C ，Plumpton CO ，Hughes DA ，Williamson PR ，Baker G ，Balabanova S ，Taylor C ，Brown R ，Hindley D ，Howell S ，Maguire M ，Mohanraj R ，Smith PE ... -  《-》

Collagenase injection versus limited fasciectomy surgery to treat Dupuytren's contracture in adult patients in the UK: DISC, a non-inferiority RCT and economic evaluation.

Dias J ，Tharmanathan P ，Arundel C ，Welch C ，Wu Q ，Leighton P ，Armaou M ，Corbacho B ，Johnson N ，James S ，Cooke J ，Bainbridge C ，Craigen M ，Warwick D ，Brady S ，Flett L ，Jones J ，Knowlson C ，Watson M ，Keding A ，Hewitt C ，Torgerson D ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》