Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery III: Training and Robotic-Assisted Approaches.

Minimally invasive mitral valve operations are increasingly common in the United States, but robotic-assisted approaches have not been widely adopted for a variety of reasons. This expert opinion reviews the state of the art and defines best practices, training, and techniques for developing a successful robotics program

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery I: Patient Selection, Evaluation, and Planning.

Widespread adoption of minimally invasive mitral valve repair and replacement may be fostered by practice consensus and standardization. This expert opinion, first of a 3-part series, outlines current best practices in patient evaluation and selection for minimally invasive mitral valve procedures, and discusses preoperative planning for cannulation and myocardial protection

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery II: Surgical Technique and Postoperative Management.

Techniques for minimally invasive mitral valve repair and replacement continue to evolve. This expert opinion, the second of a 3-part series, outlines current best practices for nonrobotic, minimally invasive mitral valve procedures, and for postoperative care after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

Comparison of total parathyroidectomy without autotransplantation and without thymectomy versus total parathyroidectomy with autotransplantation and with thymectomy for secondary hyperparathyroidism: TOPAR PILOT-Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) is common in patients with chronic renal failure. Despite the initiation of new therapeutic agents, several patients will require parathyroidectomy (PTX). Total PTX with autotransplantation of parathyroid tissue (TPTX+AT) and subtotal parathyroidectomy (SPTX) are currently considered as standard surgical procedures in the treatment of sHPT. Recurrencerates after TPTX+AT or SPTX are between 10% and 12% (median follow up: 36 months).</p> <p>Recent retrospective studies demonstrated a lower rate of recurrent sHPT of 0–4% after PTX without autotransplantation and thymectomy (TPTX) with no higher morbidity when compared to the standard procedures. The observed superiority of TPTX is flawed due to different definitions of outcomes, varying follow up periods and different surgical treatment strategies (with and without thymectomy).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Patients with sHPT (intact parathyroid hormone > 10 times above the upper limit of normal) on long term dialysis (>12 months) will be randomized either to TPTX or TPTX+AT and followed for 36 months. Outcome parameters are recurrence rates of sHPT, frequencies of reoperations due to refractory hypoparathyroidism or recurrent/persistent hyperparathyroidism, postoperative morbidity and mortality and quality of life. 50 patients per group will be randomized in order to obtain relevant frequencies of outcome parameters that will form the basis for a large scale confirmatory multicentred randomized controlled trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>sHPT is a disease with a high incidence in patients with chronic renal failure. Even a small difference in outcomes will be of clinical relevance. To assess sufficient data about the rate of recurrent sHPT after both methods, a multicentred, randomized controlled trial (MRCT) under standardized conditions is mandatory.</p> <p>Due to the existing uncertainties the calculated number of patients necessary in each treatment arm (n > 4000) makes it impossible to perform this study as a confirmatory trial. Therefore estimates of different outcomes are performed using a pilot MRCT comparing 50 versus 50 randomized patients in order to establish a hypothesis that can be tested thereafter.</p> <p>If TPTX proves to have a lower rate of recurrent sHPT, no relevant disadvantages and no higher morbidity than TPTX+AT, current surgical practice may be changed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registration (ISRCTN86202793)</p

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)