Residual mitral regurgitation after repair for posterior leaflet prolapse- Importance of preoperative anterior leaflet tethering

Background Carpentier's techniques for degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse have been established with excellent long‐term results reported. However, residual mitral regurgitation ( MR ) occasionally occurs even after a straightforward repair, though the involved mechanisms are not fully understood. We sought to identify specific preoperative echocardiographic findings associated with residual MR after a posterior mitral leaflet repair. Methods and Results We retrospectively studied 117 consecutive patients who underwent a primary mitral valve repair for isolated posterior mitral leaflet prolapse including a preoperative 3‐dimensional transesophageal echocardiography examination. Twelve had residual MR after the initial repair, of whom 7 required a corrective second pump run, 4 underwent conversion to mitral valve replacement, and 1 developed moderate MR within 1 month. Their preoperative parameters were compared with those of 105 patients who had an uneventful mitral valve repair. There were no hospital deaths. Multivariate analysis identified preoperative anterior mitral leaflet tethering angle as a significant predictor for residual MR (odds ratio, 6.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.8–33.8; P =0.0049). Receiver operator characteristics curve analysis revealed a cut‐off value of 24.3° (area under the curve, 0.77), indicating that anterior mitral leaflet angle predicts residual MR . In multivariate regression analysis, smaller anteroposterior mitral annular diameter ( P &lt;0.001) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction ( P =0.002) were significantly associated with higher anterior mitral leaflet angle, whereas left ventricular and left atrial dimension had no significant correlation. Conclusions Anterior mitral leaflet tethering in cases of posterior mitral leaflet prolapse has an adverse impact on early results following mitral valve repair. The findings of preoperative 3‐dimensional transesophageal echocardiography are important for consideration of a careful surgical strategy. </jats:sec

The Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine for Sedation During Surgery Under Epidural or Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Background: Only a few studies have been reported on the use of dexmedetomidine for sedating surgical patients requiring epidural or spinal anesthesia. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study at 12 hospitals in Japan. Methods: Adult patients were randomly allocated to receive an intravenous administration of placebo or dexmedetomidine at 0.067, 0.25, 0.5 or 1.0 μg/kg over 10 min after epidural or spinal anesthesia. All dexmedetomidine groups received dexmedetomidine 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h to maintain an Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) score of ≤ 4; however, propofol was administered to rescue patients who exceeded this score. Surgery was then started 15 min after study drug infusion in patients with OAA/S score of ≤ 4. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients not requiring rescue propofol to achieve and maintain an OAA/S score of ≤ 4. Results: Of the 120 enrolled and randomized patients, 119 were treated the study: 22 received placebo and 97 received dexmedetomidine (23–25 patients per dose). Significantly more patients did not require propofol in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg groups (68.0% and 80.0%, respectively) compared to the placebo group (22.7%) (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Common adverse events (AEs) were protocol-defined respiratory depression, bradycardia and hypotension. There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs between the dexmedetomidine and the placebo groups. Conclusion: We concluded that loading doses of 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine, followed by an infusion at a rate of 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h, provide effective and well-tolerated sedation for surgical patients during epidural or spinal anesthesia. Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT0143895

The Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation in Patients Receiving Local Anesthesia Outside the Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Phase III Trial in Japan

Background: Few studies (in other countries than the US) have reported on the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation of patients undergoing surgical or medical procedures under local anesthesia without intubation outside the intensive care unit. We performed a randomized, double-blind study in Japan. Methods: Adult patients were randomly allocated to receive placebo, dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg (DEX 0.5 group), or dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg (DEX 1.0 group) over 10 min. Then, both dexmedetomidine groups received dexmedetomidine 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h for maintaining an Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) score of ≤ 4; however, propofol was administered to rescue patients whose score exceeded this value. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who did not require rescue propofol to achieve and maintain an OAA/S score of ≤ 4. Results: In total, 162 patients were included in the placebo (n = 53), DEX 0.5 (n = 53), and DEX 1.0 (n = 56) groups. Propofol was not required in significantly more patients in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 and 1.0 μg/kg groups (52.8% and 57.1%, respectively) compared with the placebo group (1.9%) (P < 0.001 for both). Common adverse events were protocol-defined hypotension, respiratory depression and bradycardia. The incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 (26.4%) and DEX 1.0 (30.4%) groups than in the placebo group (9.4%) (P = 0.041 and P = 0.008, respectively). Conclusion: We concluded that a loading dose of 0.5 or 1.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine followed by infusion at a rate of 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h provided effective and welltolerated sedation in patients undergoing surgical or medical procedures under local anesthesia without intubation. Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT0143893

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan : JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC