BACKGROUND The clinical utility of genotype-guided (pharmacogenetically based) dosing of warfarin has been tested only in small clinical trials or observational studies, with equivocal results. METHODS We randomly assigned 1015 patients to receive doses of warfarin during the first 5 days of therapy that were determined according to a dosing algorithm that included both clinical variables and genotype data or to one that included clinical variables only. All patients and clinicians were unaware of the dose of warfarin during the first 4 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the international normalized ratio (INR) was in the therapeutic range from day 4 or 5 through day 28 of therapy. RESULTS At 4 weeks, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 45.2% in the genotype-guided group and 45.4% in the clinically guided group (adjusted mean difference, [genotype-guided group minus clinically guided group], −0.2; 95% confidence interval, −3.4 to 3.1; P=0.91). There also was no significant between-group difference among patients with a predicted dose difference between the two algorithms of 1 mg per day or more. There was, however, a significant interaction between dosing strategy and race (P=0.003). Among black patients, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was less in the genotype-guided group than in the clinically guided group. The rates of the combined outcome of any INR of 4 or more, major bleeding, or thromboembolism did not differ significantly according to dosing strategy. CONCLUSIONS Genotype-guided dosing of warfarin did not improve anticoagulation control during the first 4 weeks of therapy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; COAG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00839657.)

Background Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited. Methods We randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank. Results At 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, −6.6 and −6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P = 0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P = 0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months. Conclusions We observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.)

The optimal regimen intensity before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is unknown. We hypothesized that lower treatment-related mortality (TRM) with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) would result in improved overall survival (OS) compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC). To test this hypothesis, we performed a phase III randomized trial comparing MAC with RIC in patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes. Patients and MethodsPatients age 18 to 65 years with HCT comorbidity index # 4 and , 5% marrow myeloblasts pre-HCT were randomly assigned to receive MAC (n = 135) or RIC (n = 137) followed by HCT from HLAmatched related or unrelated donors. The primary end point was OS 18 months post-random assignment based on an intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary end points included relapse-free survival (RFS) and TRM. ResultsPlanned enrollment was 356 patients; accrual ceased at 272 because of high relapse incidence with RIC versus MAC (48.3%; 95% CI, 39.6% to 56.4% and 13.5%; 95% CI, 8.3% to 19.8%, respectively; P , .001). At 18 months, OS for patients in the RIC arm was 67.7% (95% CI, 59.1% to 74.9%) versus 77.5% (95% CI, 69.4% to 83.7%) for those in the MAC arm (difference, 9.8%; 95% CI, 20.8% to 20.3%; P = .07). TRM with RIC was 4.4% (95% CI, 1.8% to 8.9%) versus 15.8% (95% CI, 10.2% to 22.5%) with MAC (P = .002). RFS with RIC was 47.3% (95% CI, 38.7% to 55.4%) versus 67.8% (95% CI, 59.1% to 75%) with MAC (P , .01). ConclusionOS was higher with MAC, but this was not statistically significant. RIC resulted in lower TRM but higher relapse rates compared with MAC, with a statistically significant advantage in RFS with MAC. These data support the use of MAC as the standard of care for fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes.

Background Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, 30 to 50% present with atrial fibrillation, which is associated with reduced survival and increased risk of stroke. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation has been widely adopted, but evidence regarding its safety and effectiveness is limited. Methods We randomly assigned 260 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who required mitral-valve surgery to undergo either surgical ablation (ablation group) or no ablation (control group) during the mitral-valve operation. Patients in the ablation group underwent further randomization to pulmonary-vein isolation or a biatrial maze procedure. All patients underwent closure of the left atrial appendage. The primary end point was freedom from atrial fibrillation at both 6 months and 12 months (as assessed by means of 3-day Holter monitoring). Results More patients in the ablation group than in the control group were free from atrial fibrillation at both 6 and 12 months (63.2% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation between patients who underwent pulmonary-vein isolation and those who underwent the biatrial maze procedure (61.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P = 0.60). One-year mortality was 6.8% in the ablation group and 8.7% in the control group (hazard ratio with ablation, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 1.84; P = 0.55). Ablation was associated with more implantations of a permanent pacemaker than was no ablation (21.5 vs. 8.1 per 100 patient-years, P = 0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events, overall serious adverse events, or hospital readmissions. Conclusions The addition of atrial fibrillation ablation to mitral-valve surgery significantly increased the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year among patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, but the risk of implantation of a permanent pacemaker was also increased. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00903370.)