Aorto-bronchial and aorto-pulmonary fistulation after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: an analysis from the European Registry of Endovascular Aortic Repair Complications.

OBJECTIVES: To learn upon incidence, underlying mechanisms and effectiveness of treatment strategies in patients with central airway and pulmonary parenchymal aorto-bronchial fistulation after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: Analysis of an international multicentre registry (European Registry of Endovascular Aortic Repair Complications) between 2001 and 2012 with a total caseload of 4680 TEVAR procedures (14 centres). RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with a median age of 70 years (interquartile range: 60-77) (35% female) were identified. The incidence of either central airway (aorto-bronchial) or pulmonary parenchymal (aorto-pulmonary) fistulation (ABPF) in the entire cohort after TEVAR in the study period was 0.56% (central airway 58%, peripheral parenchymal 42%). Atherosclerotic aneurysm formation was the leading indication for TEVAR in 15 patients (58%). The incidence of primary endoleaks after initial TEVAR was n = 10 (38%), of these 80% were either type I or type III endoleaks. Fourteen patients (54%) developed central left bronchial tree lesions, 11 patients (42%) pulmonary parenchymal lesions and 1 patient (4%) developed a tracheal lesion. The recognized mechanism of ABPF was external compression of the bronchial tree in 13 patients (50%), the majority being due to endoleak formation, further ischaemia due to extensive coverage of bronchial feeding arteries in 3 patients (12%). Inflammation and graft erosion accounted for 4 patients (30%) each. Cumulative survival during the entire study period was 39%. Among deaths, 71% were attributed to ABPF. There was no difference in survival in patients having either central airway or pulmonary parenchymal ABPF (33 vs 45%, log-rank P = 0.55). Survival with a radical surgical approach was significantly better when compared with any other treatment strategy in terms of overall survival (63 vs 32% and 63 vs 21% at 1 and 2 years, respectively), as well as in terms of fistula-related survival (63 vs 43% and 63 vs 43% at 1 and 2 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ABPF is a rare but highly lethal complication after TEVAR. The leading mechanism behind ABPF seems to be a continuing external compression of either the bronchial tree or left upper lobe parenchyma. In this setting, persisting or newly developing endoleak formation seems to play a crucial role. Prognosis does not differ in patients with central airway or pulmonary parenchymal fistulation. Radical bronchial or pulmonary parenchymal repair in combination with stent graft removal and aortic reconstruction seems to be the most durable treatment strategy

Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF)

BACKGROUND: Metoprolol can improve haemodynamics in chronic heart failure, but survival benefit has not been proven. We investigated whether metoprolol controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) once daily, in addition to standard therapy, would lower mortality in patients with decreased ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure. METHODS: We enrolled 3991 patients with chronic heart failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV and with ejection fraction of 0.40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy, in a double-blind randomised controlled study. Randomisation was preceded by a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period. 1990 patients were randomly assigned metoprolol CR/XL 12.5 mg (NYHA III-IV) or 25.0 mg once daily (NYHA II) and 2001 were assigned placebo. The target dose was 200 mg once daily and doses were up-titrated over 8 weeks. Our primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped early on the recommendation of the independent safety committee. Mean follow-up time was 1 year. All-cause mortality was lower in the metoprolol CR/XL group than in the placebo group (145 [7.2%, per patient-year of follow-up]) vs 217 deaths [11.0%], relative risk 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.81]; p=0.00009 or adjusted for interim analyses p=0.0062). There were fewer sudden deaths in the metoprolol CR/XL group than in the placebo group (79 vs 132, 0.59 [0.45-0.78]; p=0.0002) and deaths from worsening heart failure (30 vs 58, 0.51 [0.33-0.79]; p=0.0023). INTERPRETATION: Metoprolol CR/XL once daily in addition to optimum standard therapy improved survival. The drug was well tolerated

Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study)

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. METHODS: We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% beta blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9-29, p=0.0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease