Does reperfusion injury still cause significant mortality after lung transplantation?

ObjectivesSevere reperfusion injury after lung transplantation has mortality rates approaching 40%. The purpose of this investigation was to identify whether our improved 1-year survival after lung transplantation is related to a change in reperfusion injury.MethodsWe reported in March 2000 that early institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can improve lung transplantation survival. The records of consecutive lung transplant recipients from 1990 to March 2000 (early era, n = 136) were compared with those of recipients from March 2000 to August 2006 (current era, n = 155). Reperfusion injury was defined by an oxygenation index of greater than 7 (where oxygenation index = [Percentage inspired oxygen] × [Mean airway pressure]/[Partial pressure of oxygen]). Risk factors for reperfusion injury, treatment of reperfusion injury, and 30-day mortality were compared between eras by using χ2, Fisher's, or Student's t tests where appropriate.ResultsAlthough the incidence of reperfusion injury did not change between the eras, 30-day mortality after lung transplantation improved from 11.8% in the early era to 3.9% in the current era (P = .003). In patients without reperfusion injury, mortality was low in both eras. Patients with reperfusion injury had less severe reperfusion injury (P = .01) and less mortality in the current era (11.4% vs 38.2%, P = .01). Primary pulmonary hypertension was more common in the early era (10% [14/136] vs 3.2% [5/155], P = .02). Graft ischemic time increased from 223.3 ± 78.5 to 286.32 ± 88.3 minutes in the current era (P = .0001). The mortality of patients with reperfusion injury requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation improved in the current era (80.0% [8/10] vs 25.0% [3/12], P = .01).ConclusionImproved early survival after lung transplantation is due to less severe reperfusion injury, as well as improvements in survival with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Genome-wide Analyses Identify KIF5A as a Novel ALS Gene

To identify novel genes associated with ALS, we undertook two lines of investigation. We carried out a genome-wide association study comparing 20,806 ALS cases and 59,804 controls. Independently, we performed a rare variant burden analysis comparing 1,138 index familial ALS cases and 19,494 controls. Through both approaches, we identified kinesin family member 5A (KIF5A) as a novel gene associated with ALS. Interestingly, mutations predominantly in the N-terminal motor domain of KIF5A are causative for two neurodegenerative diseases: hereditary spastic paraplegia (SPG10) and Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 2 (CMT2). In contrast, ALS-associated mutations are primarily located at the C-terminal cargo-binding tail domain and patients harboring loss-of-function mutations displayed an extended survival relative to typical ALS cases. Taken together, these results broaden the phenotype spectrum resulting from mutations in KIF5A and strengthen the role of cytoskeletal defects in the pathogenesis of ALS.Peer reviewe

Post-intervention Status in Patients With Refractory Myasthenia Gravis Treated With Eculizumab During REGAIN and Its Open-Label Extension

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether eculizumab helps patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor-positive (AChR+) refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) achieve the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) post-intervention status of minimal manifestations (MM), we assessed patients' status throughout REGAIN (Safety and Efficacy of Eculizumab in AChR+ Refractory Generalized Myasthenia Gravis) and its open-label extension. METHODS: Patients who completed the REGAIN randomized controlled trial and continued into the open-label extension were included in this tertiary endpoint analysis. Patients were assessed for the MGFA post-intervention status of improved, unchanged, worse, MM, and pharmacologic remission at defined time points during REGAIN and through week 130 of the open-label study. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients completed REGAIN and continued into the open-label study (eculizumab/eculizumab: 56; placebo/eculizumab: 61). At week 26 of REGAIN, more eculizumab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients achieved a status of improved (60.7% vs 41.7%) or MM (25.0% vs 13.3%; common OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.5). After 130 weeks of eculizumab treatment, 88.0% of patients achieved improved status and 57.3% of patients achieved MM status. The safety profile of eculizumab was consistent with its known profile and no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Eculizumab led to rapid and sustained achievement of MM in patients with AChR+ refractory gMG. These findings support the use of eculizumab in this previously difficult-to-treat patient population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: REGAIN, NCT01997229; REGAIN open-label extension, NCT02301624. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that, after 26 weeks of eculizumab treatment, 25.0% of adults with AChR+ refractory gMG achieved MM, compared with 13.3% who received placebo

Patient-Centered Communication: Do Patients Really Prefer It?

OBJECTIVE To investigate patient preferences for a patient-centered or a biomedical communication style. DESIGN Randomized study. SETTING Urgent care and ambulatory medicine clinics in an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS We recruited 250 English-speaking adult patients, excluding patients whose medical illnesses prevented evaluation of the study intervention. INTERVENTION Participants watched one of three videotaped scenarios of simulated patient-physician discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Each participant watched two versions of the scenario (biomedical vs. patient-centered communication style) and completed written and oral questionnaires to assess outcome measurements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Main outcome measures were 1) preferences for a patient-centered versus a biomedical communication style; and 2) predictors of communication style preference. Participants who preferred the patient-centered style (69%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 75) tended to be younger (82%[51/62] for age \u3c 30; 68%[100/148] for ages 30–59; 55%[21/38] for age \u3e 59; P \u3c .03), more educated (76%[54/71] for postcollege education; 73%[94/128] for some college; 49%[23/47] for high school only; P = .003), use CAM (75%[140/188] vs. 55%[33/60] for nonusers; P = .006), and have a patient-centered physician (88%[74/84] vs. 30%[16/54] for those with a biomedical physician; P \u3c .0001). On multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with preferring the patient-centered style included younger age, use of herbal CAM, having a patient-centered physician, and rating a “doctor\u27s interest in you as a person” as “very important.” CONCLUSIONS Given that a significant proportion of patients prefer a biomedical communication style, practicing physicians and medical educators should strive for flexible approaches to physician-patient communication