Personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) in Marfan syndrome: Analysis of 1-9 year outcomes by intention-to-treat in a cohort of the first 30 consecutive patients to receive a novel tissue and valve-conserving procedure, compared with the published results of aortic root replacement

Objective: Among people with Marfan syndrome who have a typical aortic root aneurysm, dissection is a characteristic cause of premature death. To pre-empt Type A dissection, composite root replacement with a mechanical valve became the standard of care in the 1980s and 1990s. This is being superseded by valvesparing aortic root replacement to avoid lifelong anticoagulation. In 2004, a total root and valve-sparing procedure, personalised external aortic support, was introduced. We report here results among the first 30 recipients. Methods: From cross-sectional digital images, the patient's own aorta is modelled by computer aided design and a replica is made in thermoplastic by rapid prototyping. On this, a personalised support of a macroporous polymer mesh is manufactured. The mesh is positioned around the aorta, closely applied from the aortoventricular junction to beyond the brachiocephalic artery. The operation is performed with a beating heart and usually without cardiopulmonary bypass. Results: Between 2004 and 2011, 30 patients, median age 28 years (IQR 20-44) had this operation and have been prospectively followed for 1.4-8.8 years by February 2013. During a total of 133 patient-years there were no deaths or cerebrovascular, aortic or valve-related events. These early outcomes are better than published results for the more radical extirpative root replacement operations. Conclusions: The aortic valve, the root architecture, and the blood/endothelia interface are conserved. The perioperative burden is less and there has been freedom from aortic and valvular events. A prospective comparative study is planned

Pulmonary metastasectomy versus continued active monitoring in colorectal cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Lung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Multidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Because of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial (N = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23-62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16-52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261. Registered on 19 April 2010

Investigation of the effect of Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra) on markers of inflammation in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (The MRC-ILA-HEART Study)

Background: Acute Coronary Syndromes account for 15% of deaths in the UK, and patients remain at significant risk of re-admission for future complications and death. Pathologically the underlying process of atherosclerosis is driven by inflammatory mechanisms, which are activated in ACS patients. Previous studies have investigated the role of inflammatory markers in this process, including interleukin 1 (IL-1) and C Reactive Protein (CRP). Pre-clinical studies indicate that IL-1 may be a primary driver of ACS and that the naturally occurring interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra) may inhibit the atherosclerotic process. This study will investigate the effects of IL-1ra on inflammatory markers in man. Methods/design: Three centres inthe UK are planning to recruit 186 Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients to receive either interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (Anakinra) or matching placebo. Patients will receive a daily subcutaneous injection of either study drug or placebo over a 14 day period. The primary outcome is area under the curve of high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (CRP) over the first 7 days. Discussion: The MRC-ILA-HEART Study is a proof of concept clinical trial investigating the effects of IL-1ra upon markers of inflammation in patients with Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. It is hoped this will provide new and exciting information in relation to an "anti-inflammatory" strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrom