Circulating c-Met-Expressing Memory T Cells Define Cardiac Autoimmunity.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmunity is increasingly recognized as a key contributing factor in heart muscle diseases. The functional features of cardiac autoimmunity in humans remain undefined because of the challenge of studying immune responses in situ. We previously described a subset of c-mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (c-Met)-expressing (c-Met+) memory T lymphocytes that preferentially migrate to cardiac tissue in mice and humans. METHODS: In-depth phenotyping of peripheral blood T cells, including c-Met+ T cells, was undertaken in groups of patients with inflammatory and noninflammatory cardiomyopathies, patients with noncardiac autoimmunity, and healthy controls. Validation studies were carried out using human cardiac tissue and in an experimental model of cardiac inflammation. RESULTS: We show that c-Met+ T cells are selectively increased in the circulation and in the myocardium of patients with inflammatory cardiomyopathies. The phenotype and function of c-Met+ T cells are distinct from those of c-Met-negative (c-Met-) T cells, including preferential proliferation to cardiac myosin and coproduction of multiple cytokines (interleukin-4, interleukin-17, and interleukin-22). Furthermore, circulating c-Met+ T cell subpopulations in different heart muscle diseases identify distinct and overlapping mechanisms of heart inflammation. In experimental autoimmune myocarditis, elevations in autoantigen-specific c-Met+ T cells in peripheral blood mark the loss of immune tolerance to the heart. Disease development can be halted by pharmacologic c-Met inhibition, indicating a causative role for c-Met+ T cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the detection of circulating c-Met+ T cells may have use in the diagnosis and monitoring of adaptive cardiac inflammation and definition of new targets for therapeutic intervention when cardiac autoimmunity causes or contributes to progressive cardiac injury

Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

textabstractObjective Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −6.7 to 14.1; P =.48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P =.01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurys

Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective: Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods: We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results: There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -6.7 to 14.1; P = .48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P = .01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions: During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, despite a continuously increasing number of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group. Endograft durability and the need for continued endograft surveillance remain key issues

Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −6.7 to 14.1; P =.48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P =.01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, despite a continuously increasing number of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group. Endograft durability and the need for continued endograft surveillance remain key issues

Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −6.7 to 14.1; P =.48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P =.01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, despite a continuously increasing number of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group. Endograft durability and the need for continued endograft surveillance remain key issues