Diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease using computed tomography angiography in patients with stable chest pain depending on clinical probability and in clinically important subgroups: meta-analysis of individual patient data

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) should be performed in patients with any clinical probability of coronary artery disease (CAD), and whether the diagnostic performance differs between subgroups of patients. DESIGN: Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from prospective diagnostic accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for published studies. Unpublished studies were identified via direct contact with participating investigators. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that compared coronary CTA with coronary angiography as the reference standard, using at least a 50% diameter reduction as a cutoff value for obstructive CAD. All patients needed to have a clinical indication for coronary angiography due to suspected CAD, and both tests had to be performed in all patients. Results had to be provided using 2×2 or 3×2 cross tabulations for the comparison of CTA with coronary angiography. Primary outcomes were the positive and negative predictive values of CTA as a function of clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD, analysed by a generalised linear mixed model; calculations were performed including and excluding non-diagnostic CTA results. The no-treat/treat threshold model was used to determine the range of appropriate pretest probabilities for CTA. The threshold model was based on obtained post-test probabilities of less than 15% in case of negative CTA and above 50% in case of positive CTA. Sex, angina pectoris type, age, and number of computed tomography detector rows were used as clinical variables to analyse the diagnostic performance in relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 5332 patients from 65 prospective diagnostic accuracy studies were retrieved. For a pretest probability range of 7-67%, the treat threshold of more than 50% and the no-treat threshold of less than 15% post-test probability were obtained using CTA. At a pretest probability of 7%, the positive predictive value of CTA was 50.9% (95% confidence interval 43.3% to 57.7%) and the negative predictive value of CTA was 97.8% (96.4% to 98.7%); corresponding values at a pretest probability of 67% were 82.7% (78.3% to 86.2%) and 85.0% (80.2% to 88.9%), respectively. The overall sensitivity of CTA was 95.2% (92.6% to 96.9%) and the specificity was 79.2% (74.9% to 82.9%). CTA using more than 64 detector rows was associated with a higher empirical sensitivity than CTA using up to 64 rows (93.4% v 86.5%, P=0.002) and specificity (84.4% v 72.6%, P<0.001). The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CTA was 0.897 (0.889 to 0.906), and the diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in women than in with men (area under the curve 0.874 (0.858 to 0.890) v 0.907 (0.897 to 0.916), P<0.001). The diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in patients older than 75 (0.864 (0.834 to 0.894), P=0.018 v all other age groups) and was not significantly influenced by angina pectoris type (typical angina 0.895 (0.873 to 0.917), atypical angina 0.898 (0.884 to 0.913), non-anginal chest pain 0.884 (0.870 to 0.899), other chest discomfort 0.915 (0.897 to 0.934)). CONCLUSIONS: In a no-treat/treat threshold model, the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using coronary CTA in patients with stable chest pain was most accurate when the clinical pretest probability was between 7% and 67%. Performance of CTA was not influenced by the angina pectoris type and was slightly higher in men and lower in older patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012002780

The Benefits Conferred by Radial Access for Cardiac Catheterization Are Offset by a Paradoxical Increase in the Rate of Vascular Access Site Complications With Femoral Access The Campeau Radial Paradox

AbstractObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess whether the benefits conferred by radial access (RA) at an individual level are offset by a proportionally greater incidence of vascular access site complications (VASC) at a population level when femoral access (FA) is performed.BackgroundThe recent widespread adoption of RA for cardiac catheterization has been associated with increased rates of VASCs when FA is attempted.MethodsLogistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted VASC rate in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients (2006 to 2008) where both RA and FA were used, and compared it with the adjusted VASC rate observed in a historical control cohort (1996 to 1998) where only FA was used. We calculated the adjusted attributable risk to estimate the proportion of VASC attributable to the introduction of RA in FA patients of the contemporary cohort.ResultsA total of 17,059 patients were included. At a population level, the VASC rate was higher in the overall contemporary cohort compared with the historical cohort (adjusted rates: 2.91% vs. 1.98%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17 to 1.89; p = 0.001). In the contemporary cohort, RA patients experienced fewer VASC than FA patients (adjusted rates: 1.44% vs. 4.19%; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.48; p < 0.001). We observed a higher VASC rate in FA patients in the contemporary cohort compared with the historical cohort (adjusted rates: 4.19% vs. 1.98%; OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.67 to 2.81; p < 0.001). This finding was consistent for both diagnostic and therapeutic catheterizations separately. The proportion of VASCs attributable to RA in the contemporary FA patients was estimated at 52.7%.ConclusionsIn a contemporary population where both RA and FA were used, the safety benefit associated with RA is offset by a paradoxical increase in VASCs among FA patients. The existence of this radial paradox should be taken into consideration, especially among trainees and default radial operators

SNEWS: The SuperNova Early Warning System

This paper provides a technical description of the SuperNova Early Warning System (SNEWS), an international network of experiments with the goal of providing an early warning of a galactic supernova.Comment: 25 pages, for New Journal of Physics Focus Issue on Neutrino Physic

Clinical, immunological and genetic features in eleven Algerian patients with major histocompatibility complex class II expression deficiency

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Presenting processed antigens to CD4+ lymphocytes during the immune response involves major histocompatibility complex class II molecules. MHC class II genes transcription is regulated by four transcription factors: CIITA, RFXANK, RFX5 and RFXAP. Defects in these factors result in major histocompatibility complex class II expression deficiency, a primary combined immunodeficiency frequent in North Africa. Autosomal recessive mutations in the <it>RFXANK</it> gene have been reported as being the principal defect found in North African patients with this disorder. In this paper, we describe clinical, immunological and genetic features of 11 unrelated Algerian patients whose monocytes display a total absence of MHC class II molecules. They shared mainly the same clinical picture which included protracted diarrhoea and respiratory tract recurrent infections. Genetic analysis revealed that 9 of the 11 patients had the same RFXANK founder mutation, a 26 bp deletion (named I5E6-25_I5E6+1, also known as 752delG26). Immunological and genetic findings in our series may facilitate genetic counselling implementation for Algerian consanguineous families. Further studies need to be conducted to determine 752delG26 heterozygous mutation frequency in Algerian population.</p

Canadian Cardiovascular Society 2022 Guidelines for Cardiovascular Interventions in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Interventions in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) focus on surgical and percutaneous interventions in light of rapidly evolving ACHD clinical practice. To bring rigour to our process and amplify the cumulative nature of evidence ACHD care we used the ADAPTE process; we systematically adjudicated, updated, and adapted existing guidelines by Canadian, American, and European cardiac societies from 2010 to 2020. We applied this to interventions related to right and left ventricular outflow obstruction, tetralogy of Fallot, coarctation, aortopathy associated with bicuspid aortic valve, atrioventricular canal defects, Ebstein anomaly, complete and congenitally corrected transposition, and patients with the Fontan operation. In addition to tables indexed to evidence, clinical flow diagrams are included for each lesion to facilitate a practical approach to clinical decision-making. Excluded are recommendations for pacemakers, defibrillators, and arrhythmia-directed interventions covered in separate designated documents. Similarly, where overlap occurs with other guidelines for valvular interventions, reference is made to parallel publications. There is a paucity of high-level quality of evidence in the form of randomized clinical trials to support guidelines in ACHD. We accounted for this in the wording of the strength of recommendations put forth by our national and international experts. As data grow on long-term follow-up, we expect that the evidence driving clinical practice will become increasingly granular. These recommendations are meant to be used to guide dialogue between clinicians, interventional cardiologists, surgeons, and patients making complex decisions relative to ACHD interventions.</p

Canadian Cardiovascular Society 2022 Guidelines for Cardiovascular Interventions in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Interventions in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) focus on surgical and percutaneous interventions in light of rapidly evolving ACHD clinical practice. To bring rigour to our process and amplify the cumulative nature of evidence ACHD care we used the ADAPTE process; we systematically adjudicated, updated, and adapted existing guidelines by Canadian, American, and European cardiac societies from 2010 to 2020. We applied this to interventions related to right and left ventricular outflow obstruction, tetralogy of Fallot, coarctation, aortopathy associated with bicuspid aortic valve, atrioventricular canal defects, Ebstein anomaly, complete and congenitally corrected transposition, and patients with the Fontan operation. In addition to tables indexed to evidence, clinical flow diagrams are included for each lesion to facilitate a practical approach to clinical decision-making. Excluded are recommendations for pacemakers, defibrillators, and arrhythmia-directed interventions covered in separate designated documents. Similarly, where overlap occurs with other guidelines for valvular interventions, reference is made to parallel publications. There is a paucity of high-level quality of evidence in the form of randomized clinical trials to support guidelines in ACHD. We accounted for this in the wording of the strength of recommendations put forth by our national and international experts. As data grow on long-term follow-up, we expect that the evidence driving clinical practice will become increasingly granular. These recommendations are meant to be used to guide dialogue between clinicians, interventional cardiologists, surgeons, and patients making complex decisions relative to ACHD interventions

Selinexor in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (SADAL): a single-arm, multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer with a median overall survival of less than 6 months. We aimed to assess the response to single-agent selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export, in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had no therapeutic options of potential clinical benefit. Methods: SADAL was a multicentre, multinational, open-label, phase 2b study done in 59 sites in 19 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received two to five lines of previous therapies, and progressed after or were not candidates for autologous stem-cell transplantation were enrolled. Germinal centre B-cell or non-germinal centre B-cell tumour subtype and double or triple expressor status were determined by immunohistochemistry and double or triple hit status was determined by cytogenetics. Patients received 60 mg selinexor orally on days 1 and 3 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study was initially designed to evaluate both 60 mg and 100 mg twice-weekly doses of selinexor; however, the 100 mg dose was discontinued in the protocol (version 7.0) on March 29, 2017, when an improved therapeutic window was observed at 60 mg. Primary outcome was overall response rate. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all patients who received 60 mg selinexor under protocol version 6.0, or enrolled under protocol versions 7.0 or higher and received at least one dose of selinexor. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02227251 (active but not enrolling). Findings: Between Oct 21, 2015, and Nov 2, 2019, 267 patients were randomly assigned, with 175 allocated to the 60 mg group and 92 to the discontinued 100 mg group. 48 patients assigned to the 60 mg group were excluded due to enrolment before version 6.0 of the protocol; the remaining 127 patients received selinexor 60 mg and were included in analyses of primary outcome and safety. The overall response rate was 28% (36/127; 95% CI 20·7–37·0); 15 (12%) achieved a complete response and 21 (17%) a partial response. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (n=58), neutropenia (n=31), anaemia (n=28), fatigue (n=14), hyponatraemia (n=10), and nausea (n=8). The most common serious adverse events were pyrexia (n=9), pneumonia (n=6), and sepsis (n=6). There were no deaths judged as related to treatment with selinexor. Interpretation: Single-drug oral selinexor induced durable responses and had a manageable adverse events profile in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received at least two lines of previous chemoimmunotherapy. Selinexor could be considered a new oral, non-cytotoxic treatment option in this setting