Comparison of thoracic aortic diameter changes after endograft placement in patients with traumatic and aneurysmal disease

No Abstract

Pediatric Foreign Body Aspiration

OBJECTIVES After completing this article, readers should be able to: 1. Delineate the signs and symptoms of foreign body aspiration. 2. Explain the process of evaluating for suspected foreign body aspiration. 3. Describe the possible radiographic manifestations of foreign body aspiration. 4. Explain the management of foreign body aspiration in children. 5. Delineate the potential late complications of foreign body aspiration

MGMT inhibition in ER positive breast cancer leads to CDC2, TOP2A, AURKB, CDC20, KIF20A, Cyclin A2, Cyclin B2, Cyclin D1, ERα and survivin inhibition and enhances response to temozolomide

The DNA damage repair enzyme, O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) is overexpressed in breast cancer, correlating directly with estrogen receptor (ER) expression and function. In ER negative breast cancer the MGMT promoter is frequently methylated. In ER positive breast cancer MGMT is upregulated and modulates ER function. Here, we evaluate MGMT’s role in control of other clinically relevant targets involved in cell cycle regulation during breast cancer oncogenesis. We show that O6-benzylguanine (BG), an MGMT inhibitor decreases CDC2, CDC20, TOP2A, AURKB, KIF20A, cyclin B2, A2, D1, ERα and survivin and induces c-PARP and p21 and sensitizes ER positive breast cancer to temozolomide (TMZ). Further, siRNA inhibition of MGMT inhibits CDC2, TOP2A, AURKB, KIF20A, Cyclin B2, A2 and survivin and induces p21. Combination of BG+TMZ decreases CDC2, CDC20, TOP2A, AURKB, KIF20A, Cyclin A2, B2, D1, ERα and survivin. Temozolomide alone inhibits MGMT expression in a dose and time dependent manner and increases p21 and cytochrome c. Temozolomide inhibits transcription of TOP2A, AURKB, KIF20A and does not have any effect on CDC2 and CDC20 and induces p21. BG+/-TMZ inhibits breast cancer growth. In our orthotopic ER positive breast cancer xenografts, BG+/-TMZ decreases ki-67, CDC2, CDC20, TOP2A, AURKB and induces p21 expression. In the same model, BG+TMZ combination inhibits breast tumor growth in vivo compared to single agent (TMZ or BG) or control. Our results show that MGMT inhibition is relevant for inhibition of multiple downstream targets involved in tumorigenesis. We also show that MGMT inhibition increases ER positive breast cancer sensitivity to alkylator based chemotherapy

Five-Year Outcomes From the United States Pivotal Trial of Valiant Captivia Stent Graft for Blunt Aortic Injury

The Clinical PeRformancE of the Valiant Thoracic Stent Graft with Capitvia Delivery System for the EndovaSCUlar treatment of Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries (RESCUE) study evaluating thoracic endovascular repair using the Valiant Captivia endograft for blunt thoracic aortic injury reported promising 30-day outcomes. We now describe 5 years of follow-up of this cohort. Fifty patients (mean age 40.7 ± 17.4 years, 76% male, mean injury severity score 38 ± 14.4) were treated for blunt thoracic aortic injury (2010 to 2012) with this endograft. Seventy percent (n = 35) of blunt thoracic aortic injury extent was grade III or higher. Extent of arch repair required full (40%) or partial (18%) left subclavian artery coverage. At 5 years, clinical and imaging compliance was 90.3% (28 of 31) and 67.7% (21 of 31), respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 8%. Three additional patients died of non–device-related causes (respiratory failure, infection, metastatic cancer) through 5-year follow-up, yielding a Kaplan-Meier survival of 85.2% through 5 years. Neither stroke nor spinal cord ischemia was observed at 5 years. Two type II endoleaks seen at 30 days resolved spontaneously, and no additional endoleaks were described in the study cohort through 5 years. No secondary endovascular procedures or conversion to open surgery were reported through 5 years. Four subjects underwent left subclavian revascularization for symptomatic indications. Finally, complete exclusion of the traumatic injury was maintained with no incidences of stent graft kinking, fracture, loss of patency, or migration through 5 years in all patients. This multicenter clinical trial describes excellent 5-year outcomes and durable exclusion of blunt thoracic aortic injury using a novel stent graft system. Thoracic endovascular repair with this endograft appears to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury

A randomized evaluation of the TriGuard™ HDH cerebral embolic protection device to Reduce the Impact of Cerebral Embolic LEsions after TransCatheter Aortic Valve ImplanTation: the REFLECT I trial.

AIMS : The REFLECT I trial investigated the safety and effectiveness of the TriGuard™ HDH (TG) cerebral embolic deflection device in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS : This prospective, multicentre, single-blind, 2:1 randomized (TG vs. no TG) study aimed to enrol up to 375 patients, including up to 90 roll-in patients. The primary combined safety endpoint (VARC-2 defined early safety) at 30 days was compared with a performance goal. The primary efficacy endpoint was a hierarchical composite of (i) all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days, (ii) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) worsening at 2-5 days or Montreal Cognitive Assessment worsening at 30 days, and (iii) total volume of cerebral ischaemic lesions detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 2-5 days. Cumulative scores were compared between treatment groups using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method. A total of 258 of the planned, 375 patients (68.8%) were enrolled (54 roll-in and 204 randomized). The primary safety outcome was met compared with the performance goal (21.8% vs. 35%, P \u3c 0.0001). The primary hierarchical efficacy endpoint was not met (mean efficacy score, higher is better: -5.3 ± 99.8 TG vs. 11.8 ± 96.4 control, P = 0.31). Covert central nervous system injury was numerically lower with TG both in-hospital (46.1% vs. 60.3%, P = 0.0698) and at 5 days (61.7 vs. 76.2%, P = 0.054) compared with controls. CONCLUSION : REFLECT I demonstrated that TG cerebral protection during TAVR was safe in comparison with historical TAVR data but did not meet the predefined effectiveness endpoint compared with unprotected TAVR controls

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs self-expanding valves: The REPRISE III randomized clinical trial

Importance: To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective: To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results: Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P = .67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P = .14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P = .21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P = .02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P \u3c .01) or had a valve thrombosis (3.0% vs 0.0%; P \u3c .01) compared with CoreValve. More patients who received CoreValve experienced a repeated procedure (0.6% Lotus vs 2.9% CoreValve; HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P \u3c .01), valve migration (0.0% vs 0.7%; P = .05), or embolization (0.0% vs 2.0%; P \u3c .01) than Lotus. Valve areas remained significantly larger and the mean gradient was lower with CoreValve than Lotus (valve area, mean [SD]: Lotus, 1.53 [0.49] cm2 vs CoreValve, 1.76 [0.51] cm2; P \u3c .01; valve gradient, mean [SD]: Lotus, 13.0 [6.7] mm Hg vs 8.1 [3.7] mm Hg; P \u3c .01). Moderate or greater PVL was more frequent with CoreValve (0.3% Lotus vs 3.8% CoreValve; P \u3c .01) at 2 years. Larger improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed with Lotus compared with CoreValve (improved by ≥1 NYHA class: Lotus, 338 of 402 [84.1%] vs CoreValve, 143 of 189 [75.7%]; P = .01; improved by ≥2 NYHA classes: 122 of 402 [37.3%] vs 65 of 305 [21.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: After 2 years, all-cause mortality rates, mortality or disabling stroke were similar between Lotus and CoreValve. Disabling stroke, functional class, valve migration, and PVL favored the Lotus arm whereas valve hemodynamics, thrombosis, and new pacemaker implantation favored the CoreValve arm. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective: To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results: Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P = .67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P = .14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P = .21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P = .02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P \u3c .01) or had a valve thrombosis (3.0% vs 0.0%; P \u3c .01) compared with CoreValve. More patients who received CoreValve experienced a repeated procedure (0.6% Lotus vs 2.9% CoreValve; HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P \u3c .01), valve migration (0.0% vs 0.7%; P = .05), or embolization (0.0% vs 2.0%; P \u3c .01) than Lotus. Valve areas remained significantly larger and the mean gradient was lower with CoreValve than Lotus (valve area, mean [SD]: Lotus, 1.53 [0.49] cm2 vs CoreValve, 1.76 [0.51] cm2; P \u3c .01; valve gradient, mean [SD]: Lotus, 13.0 [6.7] mm Hg vs 8.1 [3.7] mm Hg; P \u3c .01). Moderate or greater PVL was more frequent with CoreValve (0.3% Lotus vs 3.8% CoreValve; P \u3c .01) at 2 years. Larger improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed with Lotus compared with CoreValve (improved by ≥1 NYHA class: Lotus, 338 of 402 [84.1%] vs CoreValve, 143 of 189 [75.7%]; P = .01; improved by ≥2 NYHA classes: 122 of 402 [37.3%] vs 65 of 305 [21.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: After 2 years, all-cause mortality rates, mortality or disabling stroke were similar between Lotus and CoreValve. Disabling stroke, functional class, valve migration, and PVL favored the Lotus arm whereas valve hemodynamics, thrombosis, and new pacemaker implantation favored the CoreValve arm. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434