Rationale and design of the randomized COmparison of Methods for Pulmonary blood flow Augmentation: Shunt versus Stent (COMPASS) trial: A Pediatric Heart Network study

Abstract

Neonates with congenital heart disease (CHD) and ductal-dependent pulmonary blood flow (DD-PBF) require early intervention. Historically, this intervention was most often a surgical systemic-to-pulmonary shunt (SPS; e.g., Blalock–Thomas–Taussig shunt). However, over the past two decades an alternative to SPS has emerged in the form of transcatheter ductal artery stenting (DAS). While many reports have indicated safety and durability of the DAS approach, few studies compare outcomes between DAS and SPS. The reports that do exist are comprised primarily of small-cohort single-center reviews. Two multicenter retrospective studies suggest that DAS is associated with similar or superior survival compared to SPS. These studies offer the best evidence to-date, and yet both have important limitations. The authors describe herein the rationale and design of the COMPASS (COmparison of Methods for Pulmonary blood flow Augmentation: Shunt vs. Stent) Trial (NCT05268094, IDE G210212). The COMPASS Trial aims to randomize 236 neonates with DD-PBF to either DAS or SPS across approximately 27 pediatric centers in North America. The goal of this trial is to compare important clinical outcomes between DAS and SPS over the first year of life in a cohort of neonates balanced by randomization to assess whether one method of palliation demonstrates therapeutic superiority.