International study on syncope of uncertain aetiology 3 (ISSUE 3): pacemaker therapy for patients with asystolic neurally-mediated syncope: rationale and study design

Aim To assess the effectiveness of pacing therapy for preventing syncope recurrence in patients with a high probability of cardio-inhibitory neurally-mediated syncope (NMS). Methods Study design: Multi-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Inclusion criteria: Eligible patients are at least 40 years of age and have suffered, in the prior 2 years, >= 3 syncope episodes of suspected NMS (with the exception of carotid sinus syndrome), which is considered by the attending physician to have a severe clinical presentation requiring treatment initiation. Patients with positive and negative tilt testing are included. Exclusion criteria: Patients with one or more of the following are excluded: carotid sinus syndrome; suspected or definite heart disease and high likelihood of cardiac syncope; symptomatic orthostatic hypotension diagnosed by standing blood pressure measurement; loss of consciousness different from syncope (e.g. epilepsy, psychiatric, metabolic, drop-attack, TIA, intoxication, cataplexy); subclavian steal syndrome. Study protocol: Eligible patients receive an Implantable Loop Recorder and are followed tilt the first documented syncopal recurrence or a significant asystolic event. Those patients who have an asystolic pause (sinus arrest or AV block) > 6 s or a syncopal asystolic pause >= 3 s receive a dual-chamber pacemaker implantation and are randomized to active therapy (Pm ON) or to placebo therapy (Pm OFF). End-points: Primary end-point is the first syncope recurrence after pacemaker implant. Sample size and duration: A maximum of 710 patients are to be enrolled during an anticipated period of 2 years to allow randomization of 60 patients in the Pm ON arm and 60 in the Pm OFF arm (total 120

Head and Body/Tail Pancreatic Carcinomas Are Not the Same Tumors

International audienceThe association between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) location (head vs. Body/Tail (B/T)) and clinical outcome remains controversial. We collected clinicopathological and gene expression data from 249 resected PDAC samples from public data sets, and we compared data between 208 head and 41 B/T samples. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was better for the head than for the B/T PDACs (44 vs. 27%, p = 0.043), especially when comparing tumors with similar TNM classification (T3/4N0M0: 67% vs. 17%, p = 0.002) or from the same molecular class (squamous subtype: 31% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001). Bailey’s molecular subtypes were differentially distributed within the two groups, with the immunogenic subtype being underrepresented in the “B/T” group (p = 0.005). Uni- and multivariate analyses indicated that PDAC anatomic location was an independent prognostic factor. Finally, the supervised analysis identified 334 genes differentially expressed. Genes upregulated in the “head” group suggested lymphocyte activation and pancreas exocrine functions. Genes upregulated in the “B/T” group were related to keratinocyte differentiation, in line with the enrichment for squamous phenotype. We identified a robust gene expression signature (GES) associated with B/T PDAC location, suggesting that head and B/T PDAC are different. This GES could serve as an indicator for differential therapeutic management based on PDAC location