Balloon valvuloplasty for critical aortic stenosis in the newborn: Influence of new catheter technology

AbstractBetween 1986 and July 1990, balloon valvuloplasty was attempted in eight newborns (<28 days of age) with isolated critical aortic valve stenosis. Balloon valvuloplasty could not be successfully accomplished in any of the three infants presenting before 1989. Since March 1989, when improved catheter technology became available, all five neonates presenting with critical aortic stenosis were treated successfully by balloon valvuloplasty. A transumbilical approach was utilized in all four infants in whom umbilical artery access could be obtained. One newborn who was 25 days of age underwent transfemoral balloon valvuloplasty.Balloon valvuloplasty was immediately successful in all five newborns, as evidenced by a decrease in valve gradient and improvement in left ventricular function and cardiac output. Peak systolic gradient was reduced by 64% from 69 ± 8 to 25 ± 3 mm Hg (p = 0.005). Left ventricular systolic pressure decreased from 128 ± 9 to 95 ± 9 mm Hg (p = 0.02) and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure decreased from 20 ± 2 to 11 ± 1 mm Hg (p = 0.02). Moderate (2+) aortic regurgitation was documented in two infants after valvuloplasty. The time from first catheter insertion to valve dilation averaged 57 ± 14 min (range 26 to 94) and the median length of the hospital stay was 4 days.With the use of recently available catheters, the transumbilical technique of balloon valvuloplasty can be performed quickly, safely and effectively in the newborn with critical aortic stenosis. It does not require general anesthesia, cardiopulmonary bypass or a left ventricular apical incision and it preserves the femoral arteries for future transcatheter intervention should significant aortic stenosis recur

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health