A WC/WO star exploding within an expanding carbon-oxygen-neon nebula

The final explosive fate of massive stars, and the nature of the compact remnants they leave behind (black holes and neutron stars), are major open questions in astrophysics. Many massive stars are stripped of their outer hydrogen envelopes as they evolve. Such Wolf-Rayet (W-R) stars emit strong and rapidly expanding (v_wind>1000 km/s) winds indicating a high escape velocity from the stellar surface. A fraction of this population is also helium depleted, with spectra dominated by highly-ionized emission lines of carbon and oxygen (Types WC/WO). Evidence indicates that the most commonly-observed supernova (SN) explosions that lack hydrogen and helium (Types Ib/Ic) cannot result from massive WC/WO stars, leading some to suggest that most such stars collapse directly into black holes without a visible supernova explosions. Here, we present observations of supernova SN 2019hgp, discovered about a day after explosion. The short rise time and rapid decline place it among an emerging population of rapidly-evolving transients (RETs). Spectroscopy reveals a rich set of emission lines indicating that the explosion occurred within a nebula composed of carbon, oxygen, and neon. Narrow absorption features show that this material is expanding at relatively high velocities (>1500 km/s) requiring a compact progenitor. Our observations are consistent with an explosion of a massive WC/WO star, and suggest that massive W-R stars may be the progenitors of some rapidly evolving transients

Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: This phase 3 trial compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, an oral direct inhibitor of factor Xa, with those of enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 4541 patients to receive either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban once daily, beginning after surgery, or 40 mg of enoxaparin subcutaneously once daily, beginning the evening before surgery, plus a placebo tablet or injection. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep-vein thrombosis (either symptomatic or detected by bilateral venography if the patient was asymptomatic), nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from any cause at 36 days (range, 30 to 42). The main secondary efficacy outcome was major venous thromboembolism (proximal deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from venous thromboembolism). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included in the superiority analysis (after 1388 exclusions), and 4433 were included in the safety analysis (after 108 exclusions). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 18 of 1595 patients (1.1%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 58 of 1558 patients (3.7%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 3.7; P<0.001). Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 4 of 1686 patients (0.2%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 33 of 1678 patients (2.0%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.5; P<0.001). Major bleeding occurred in 6 of 2209 patients (0.3%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 2 of 2224 patients (0.1%) in the enoxaparin group (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: A once-daily, 10-mg oral dose of rivaroxaban was significantly more effective for extended thromboprophylaxis than a once-daily, 40-mg subcutaneous dose of enoxaparin in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. The two drugs had similar safety profiles. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00329628

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used