Thoracic Surgery News (Archived)

Applications are now open for the 2015 AATS Critical Care Scholarship, which provides CT surgery residents with the opportunity to learn about critical care by underwriting their attendance at the Cardiovascular Thoracic (CVT) Critical Care Conference. The event will take place October 1-3, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The AATS Graham Foundation funds the scholarship.

Eligibility
Applications must be enrolled in either:

** An ACGME accredited cardiothoracic surgical training program in the United States.

** RCPSC accredited cardiothoracic surgical resident program in Canada.

Benefits

**A stipend of $500 to the application’s institution to help offset the costs of travel and hotel accommodations.

** Free course registration.

Application Process

** Institutions are invited to nominate one resident to participate in this scholarship.

**Additional residents may be nominated by a 
Program Director. They will be put on the waiting list until the application process has been completed. If vacancies become available, those on the waiting list will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

Up to 30 Scholarships will be awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis!

Deadline: August 15, 2015

Learn more

Applications are now open for the 2015 AATS Critical Care Scholarship, which provides CT surgery residents with the opportunity to learn about critical care by underwriting their attendance at the Cardiovascular Thoracic (CVT) Critical Care Conference. The event will take place October 1-3, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The AATS Graham Foundation funds the scholarship.

Eligibility
Applications must be enrolled in either:

** An ACGME accredited cardiothoracic surgical training program in the United States.

** RCPSC accredited cardiothoracic surgical resident program in Canada.

Benefits

**A stipend of $500 to the application’s institution to help offset the costs of travel and hotel accommodations.

** Free course registration.

Application Process

** Institutions are invited to nominate one resident to participate in this scholarship.

**Additional residents may be nominated by a 
Program Director. They will be put on the waiting list until the application process has been completed. If vacancies become available, those on the waiting list will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

Up to 30 Scholarships will be awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis!

Deadline: August 15, 2015

Learn more

Applications are now open for the 2015 AATS Critical Care Scholarship, which provides CT surgery residents with the opportunity to learn about critical care by underwriting their attendance at the Cardiovascular Thoracic (CVT) Critical Care Conference. The event will take place October 1-3, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The AATS Graham Foundation funds the scholarship.

Eligibility
Applications must be enrolled in either:

** An ACGME accredited cardiothoracic surgical training program in the United States.

** RCPSC accredited cardiothoracic surgical resident program in Canada.

Benefits

**A stipend of $500 to the application’s institution to help offset the costs of travel and hotel accommodations.

** Free course registration.

Application Process

** Institutions are invited to nominate one resident to participate in this scholarship.

**Additional residents may be nominated by a 
Program Director. They will be put on the waiting list until the application process has been completed. If vacancies become available, those on the waiting list will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

Up to 30 Scholarships will be awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis!

Deadline: August 15, 2015

Learn more

SEATTLE – A new biomarker for bronchial epithelium that helps identify smokers with suspicious lesions who have lung cancer is now ready for clinical use. And one for nasal epithelium that could be used for screening may not be far behind.

“There is clearly a critical unmet need to develop molecular biomarkers to address some of the challenges that we now face since we have instituted CT screening for lung cancer,” Dr. Avi Spira said at a joint meeting of the Global Biomarkers Consortium and World Cutaneous Malignancies Congress.

Although the National Lung Screening Trial established that annual chest CT among high-risk current and former smokers reduces their risk of death from lung cancer (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409), the vast majority of those who screen positive do not have lung cancer. Also, screening only patients who meet criteria set by the trial will pick up less than half of all lung cancers in the United States.

“That leads to two critical unmet needs for molecular biomarkers in the so-called post–National Lung Screening Trial era,” said Dr. Spira, professor of medicine, pathology and laboratory medicine, and bioinformatics; chief of the division of computational biomedicine; and director of the translational bioinformatics program, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, all at Boston University.

“The first is … we desperately need molecular biomarkers that can distinguish a benign nodule found on CT versus a malignant one,” he said. “The second and arguably longer-term biomarker that we need is to distinguish which smokers would benefit from CT screening annually.”

Much of his team’s research in this area builds on the concept of field of injury. “The idea here is if you smoke, even though lung cancer tends to develop deep within the parenchyma of your lung, all of the epithelial cells that line your respiratory tract have genomic alterations that reflect the presence of that cancer,” Dr. Spira explained. Thus, profiling epithelial cells anywhere in the airway could be used for early detection and risk assessment.

He and his colleagues developed a 23-gene signature for use on bronchial epithelial cells. The biomarker was validated in the Airway Epithelium Gene Expression In the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer (AEGIS) 1 and 2 trials among 639 current and former smokers undergoing bronchoscopy for suspicious nodules seen on CT.

With 1 year of follow-up, biomarker sensitivity was 88%-89%, while specificity was 47% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:243-251). “However the negative predictive value, which is really what drives the clinical utility of this test, is above 90%. And that’s what we believe will drive physicians to use the test – [determining] who can they avoid sending for an unnecessary [biopsy] procedure,” Dr. Spira said. Bronchoscopy alone had sensitivity of about 75%, but bronchoscopy combined with the gene signature had sensitivity of 97%.

Subgroup analyses showed the biomarker had superior sensitivity for detecting lung cancer when lesions measured no more than 3 cm or were located in the lung periphery, and when patients had early-stage disease. In addition, it performed similarly well across different types of tumors.

Of special note, among patients whose pretest probability of cancer fell in the intermediate range (10%-60%), bronchoscopy had an 83% nondiagnostic rate, but the biomarker had 88% sensitivity and a 91% negative predictive value. “That means if you have a nondiagnostic bronchoscopy in a patient who is at intermediate pretest risk for disease, a negative gene expression test would mean there is a less than 10% chance this is cancer. That’s where a physician might feel, okay, I don’t have to go on and do a biopsy, I can watch that patient serially with CT scans of the chest,” Dr. Spira said.

The biomarker test is now clinically available (Percepta, manufactured by Veracyte). “I think it’s exciting because it’s the first of what I believe are many molecular biomarkers that are going to be emerging in the clinical space for the early detection of lung cancer,” he said.

“The multimillion dollar question is why are we seeing gene expression changes in normal-appearing cells so far away from where the tumor arises? We don’t have the full answer to that yet, but based on the genes that are changing, we have developed some hypotheses,” Dr. Spira said.

Some of the down-regulated genes are involved in antioxidant and DNA repair pathways, suggesting that the smokers who ultimately get cancer have less of a protective response to smoking. And some of the up-regulated genes include ones in the PI3 kinase signaling pathway.

“I would argue that what we are seeing in the proximal airway isn’t necessarily reflecting the presence of the cancer but the susceptibility, and that’s a really important distinguishing factor because then perhaps the test could be used as a screening tool,” Dr. Spira maintained.

As not all smokers at elevated risk for lung cancer will undergo bronchoscopy, one of the investigators’ future goals is to move biomarker testing to a less invasive site. They are currently focusing on the nose, using nasal epithelium collected by brushings from the inferior turbinate.

An analysis of nasal epithelium collected at the time of bronchoscopy in the AEGIS trials has shown that a 200-gene signature performs well for distinguishing between patients with and without lung cancer, Dr. Spira reported. Furthermore, the changes in gene expression profile in the nose were similar to those seen in the bronchus.

Such a biomarker might have best clinical utility in two other settings, he proposed. The first would be in patients having nodules that are clearly not accessible by bronchoscopy, in which case the biomarker would be applied for diagnosis. The second would be in smokers being seen for routine annual exams, in which case it would be used to identify those who should have CT surveillance.

“We are hopeful that the nasal epithelium can serve as a less invasive surrogate for the bronchus and ultimately allow us to move airway profiling into the screening setting for lung cancer in the longer term,” he concluded.

Dr. Spira disclosed that he receives intellectual property rights and consulting fees from, and has an ownership interest in, Veracyte Inc.

SEATTLE – A new biomarker for bronchial epithelium that helps identify smokers with suspicious lesions who have lung cancer is now ready for clinical use. And one for nasal epithelium that could be used for screening may not be far behind.

“There is clearly a critical unmet need to develop molecular biomarkers to address some of the challenges that we now face since we have instituted CT screening for lung cancer,” Dr. Avi Spira said at a joint meeting of the Global Biomarkers Consortium and World Cutaneous Malignancies Congress.

Although the National Lung Screening Trial established that annual chest CT among high-risk current and former smokers reduces their risk of death from lung cancer (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409), the vast majority of those who screen positive do not have lung cancer. Also, screening only patients who meet criteria set by the trial will pick up less than half of all lung cancers in the United States.

“That leads to two critical unmet needs for molecular biomarkers in the so-called post–National Lung Screening Trial era,” said Dr. Spira, professor of medicine, pathology and laboratory medicine, and bioinformatics; chief of the division of computational biomedicine; and director of the translational bioinformatics program, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, all at Boston University.

“The first is … we desperately need molecular biomarkers that can distinguish a benign nodule found on CT versus a malignant one,” he said. “The second and arguably longer-term biomarker that we need is to distinguish which smokers would benefit from CT screening annually.”

Much of his team’s research in this area builds on the concept of field of injury. “The idea here is if you smoke, even though lung cancer tends to develop deep within the parenchyma of your lung, all of the epithelial cells that line your respiratory tract have genomic alterations that reflect the presence of that cancer,” Dr. Spira explained. Thus, profiling epithelial cells anywhere in the airway could be used for early detection and risk assessment.

He and his colleagues developed a 23-gene signature for use on bronchial epithelial cells. The biomarker was validated in the Airway Epithelium Gene Expression In the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer (AEGIS) 1 and 2 trials among 639 current and former smokers undergoing bronchoscopy for suspicious nodules seen on CT.

With 1 year of follow-up, biomarker sensitivity was 88%-89%, while specificity was 47% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:243-251). “However the negative predictive value, which is really what drives the clinical utility of this test, is above 90%. And that’s what we believe will drive physicians to use the test – [determining] who can they avoid sending for an unnecessary [biopsy] procedure,” Dr. Spira said. Bronchoscopy alone had sensitivity of about 75%, but bronchoscopy combined with the gene signature had sensitivity of 97%.

Subgroup analyses showed the biomarker had superior sensitivity for detecting lung cancer when lesions measured no more than 3 cm or were located in the lung periphery, and when patients had early-stage disease. In addition, it performed similarly well across different types of tumors.

Of special note, among patients whose pretest probability of cancer fell in the intermediate range (10%-60%), bronchoscopy had an 83% nondiagnostic rate, but the biomarker had 88% sensitivity and a 91% negative predictive value. “That means if you have a nondiagnostic bronchoscopy in a patient who is at intermediate pretest risk for disease, a negative gene expression test would mean there is a less than 10% chance this is cancer. That’s where a physician might feel, okay, I don’t have to go on and do a biopsy, I can watch that patient serially with CT scans of the chest,” Dr. Spira said.

The biomarker test is now clinically available (Percepta, manufactured by Veracyte). “I think it’s exciting because it’s the first of what I believe are many molecular biomarkers that are going to be emerging in the clinical space for the early detection of lung cancer,” he said.

“The multimillion dollar question is why are we seeing gene expression changes in normal-appearing cells so far away from where the tumor arises? We don’t have the full answer to that yet, but based on the genes that are changing, we have developed some hypotheses,” Dr. Spira said.

Some of the down-regulated genes are involved in antioxidant and DNA repair pathways, suggesting that the smokers who ultimately get cancer have less of a protective response to smoking. And some of the up-regulated genes include ones in the PI3 kinase signaling pathway.

“I would argue that what we are seeing in the proximal airway isn’t necessarily reflecting the presence of the cancer but the susceptibility, and that’s a really important distinguishing factor because then perhaps the test could be used as a screening tool,” Dr. Spira maintained.

As not all smokers at elevated risk for lung cancer will undergo bronchoscopy, one of the investigators’ future goals is to move biomarker testing to a less invasive site. They are currently focusing on the nose, using nasal epithelium collected by brushings from the inferior turbinate.

An analysis of nasal epithelium collected at the time of bronchoscopy in the AEGIS trials has shown that a 200-gene signature performs well for distinguishing between patients with and without lung cancer, Dr. Spira reported. Furthermore, the changes in gene expression profile in the nose were similar to those seen in the bronchus.

Such a biomarker might have best clinical utility in two other settings, he proposed. The first would be in patients having nodules that are clearly not accessible by bronchoscopy, in which case the biomarker would be applied for diagnosis. The second would be in smokers being seen for routine annual exams, in which case it would be used to identify those who should have CT surveillance.

“We are hopeful that the nasal epithelium can serve as a less invasive surrogate for the bronchus and ultimately allow us to move airway profiling into the screening setting for lung cancer in the longer term,” he concluded.

Dr. Spira disclosed that he receives intellectual property rights and consulting fees from, and has an ownership interest in, Veracyte Inc.

SEATTLE – A new biomarker for bronchial epithelium that helps identify smokers with suspicious lesions who have lung cancer is now ready for clinical use. And one for nasal epithelium that could be used for screening may not be far behind.

“There is clearly a critical unmet need to develop molecular biomarkers to address some of the challenges that we now face since we have instituted CT screening for lung cancer,” Dr. Avi Spira said at a joint meeting of the Global Biomarkers Consortium and World Cutaneous Malignancies Congress.

Although the National Lung Screening Trial established that annual chest CT among high-risk current and former smokers reduces their risk of death from lung cancer (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409), the vast majority of those who screen positive do not have lung cancer. Also, screening only patients who meet criteria set by the trial will pick up less than half of all lung cancers in the United States.

“That leads to two critical unmet needs for molecular biomarkers in the so-called post–National Lung Screening Trial era,” said Dr. Spira, professor of medicine, pathology and laboratory medicine, and bioinformatics; chief of the division of computational biomedicine; and director of the translational bioinformatics program, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, all at Boston University.

“The first is … we desperately need molecular biomarkers that can distinguish a benign nodule found on CT versus a malignant one,” he said. “The second and arguably longer-term biomarker that we need is to distinguish which smokers would benefit from CT screening annually.”

Much of his team’s research in this area builds on the concept of field of injury. “The idea here is if you smoke, even though lung cancer tends to develop deep within the parenchyma of your lung, all of the epithelial cells that line your respiratory tract have genomic alterations that reflect the presence of that cancer,” Dr. Spira explained. Thus, profiling epithelial cells anywhere in the airway could be used for early detection and risk assessment.

He and his colleagues developed a 23-gene signature for use on bronchial epithelial cells. The biomarker was validated in the Airway Epithelium Gene Expression In the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer (AEGIS) 1 and 2 trials among 639 current and former smokers undergoing bronchoscopy for suspicious nodules seen on CT.

With 1 year of follow-up, biomarker sensitivity was 88%-89%, while specificity was 47% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:243-251). “However the negative predictive value, which is really what drives the clinical utility of this test, is above 90%. And that’s what we believe will drive physicians to use the test – [determining] who can they avoid sending for an unnecessary [biopsy] procedure,” Dr. Spira said. Bronchoscopy alone had sensitivity of about 75%, but bronchoscopy combined with the gene signature had sensitivity of 97%.

Subgroup analyses showed the biomarker had superior sensitivity for detecting lung cancer when lesions measured no more than 3 cm or were located in the lung periphery, and when patients had early-stage disease. In addition, it performed similarly well across different types of tumors.

Of special note, among patients whose pretest probability of cancer fell in the intermediate range (10%-60%), bronchoscopy had an 83% nondiagnostic rate, but the biomarker had 88% sensitivity and a 91% negative predictive value. “That means if you have a nondiagnostic bronchoscopy in a patient who is at intermediate pretest risk for disease, a negative gene expression test would mean there is a less than 10% chance this is cancer. That’s where a physician might feel, okay, I don’t have to go on and do a biopsy, I can watch that patient serially with CT scans of the chest,” Dr. Spira said.

The biomarker test is now clinically available (Percepta, manufactured by Veracyte). “I think it’s exciting because it’s the first of what I believe are many molecular biomarkers that are going to be emerging in the clinical space for the early detection of lung cancer,” he said.

“The multimillion dollar question is why are we seeing gene expression changes in normal-appearing cells so far away from where the tumor arises? We don’t have the full answer to that yet, but based on the genes that are changing, we have developed some hypotheses,” Dr. Spira said.

Some of the down-regulated genes are involved in antioxidant and DNA repair pathways, suggesting that the smokers who ultimately get cancer have less of a protective response to smoking. And some of the up-regulated genes include ones in the PI3 kinase signaling pathway.

“I would argue that what we are seeing in the proximal airway isn’t necessarily reflecting the presence of the cancer but the susceptibility, and that’s a really important distinguishing factor because then perhaps the test could be used as a screening tool,” Dr. Spira maintained.

As not all smokers at elevated risk for lung cancer will undergo bronchoscopy, one of the investigators’ future goals is to move biomarker testing to a less invasive site. They are currently focusing on the nose, using nasal epithelium collected by brushings from the inferior turbinate.

An analysis of nasal epithelium collected at the time of bronchoscopy in the AEGIS trials has shown that a 200-gene signature performs well for distinguishing between patients with and without lung cancer, Dr. Spira reported. Furthermore, the changes in gene expression profile in the nose were similar to those seen in the bronchus.

Such a biomarker might have best clinical utility in two other settings, he proposed. The first would be in patients having nodules that are clearly not accessible by bronchoscopy, in which case the biomarker would be applied for diagnosis. The second would be in smokers being seen for routine annual exams, in which case it would be used to identify those who should have CT surveillance.

“We are hopeful that the nasal epithelium can serve as a less invasive surrogate for the bronchus and ultimately allow us to move airway profiling into the screening setting for lung cancer in the longer term,” he concluded.

Dr. Spira disclosed that he receives intellectual property rights and consulting fees from, and has an ownership interest in, Veracyte Inc.

Many techniques for repair of aortic dissection have evolved, but no trials have compared those techniques to determine which is the best. However, a study team has attempted to evaluate a surgical approach (the “David technique”) that includes three specific steps – no aortic cross clamp, the use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA), and the antegrade resumption of cardiopulmonary bypass. They found that this approach yielded significantly better long-term outcomes than did other approaches tried.

The study investigators, led by Dr. Jennifer S. Lawton of Washington University in St. Louis, reported their findings in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015 [doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.023]). “We hypothesized that a surgical strategy to prevent cross-clamp injury or false lumen pressurization would be associated with reduced morbidity, mortality, persistent false lumen patency, and improved survival,” Dr. Lawton and her coauthors wrote. “This study was designed to determine the differences in outcomes between operative techniques.”

The study evaluated 196 patients who had surgery for acute type A aortic dissection over 17 years. Group 1, which comprised 49 patients, had the operation according to the protocol that involved the three specific steps, as Dr. Tirone David of the University of Toronto first reported in 1999 (Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1999;67:1999-2001) — the “David technique,” as the study authors called it. Group 2 consisted of patients whose repair involved a variety of techniques, including one or two steps of the David technique but not all three.

Study endpoints were 30-day mortality rate, postoperative adverse events, presence of a false aortic lumen, and overall survival, the latter defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date or death or last follow-up. The evaluation included examination of patients’ latest CT scan or MRI that was at least 6 months after the operation for false lumen, but only 78 patients had imaging at that interval.

Patients in Group 1 had a higher rate of persistent false lumen – 74% vs. 68% in Group 2. Thirty-day mortality was 6.1% in Group 1 and 15.7% in Group 2, but Dr. Lawton and her coauthors said this difference was not statistically significant.

Survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years among both groups were “consistent with published ranges,” the authors said. At 5 years, the predicted survival was 86% for Group 1 and 56% for Group 2; and at 10 years, 72% and 37% respectively.

The study authors acknowledged the controversy that surrounds the use of retrograde resumption of cardiopulmonary bypass after replacement of the ascending aorta and that there’s no consensus on which method is best for resuming cardiopulmonary bypass after repair of a type A aortic dissection.

The study also found no difference in the incidence of false lumen between the two groups, but again, this is a source of controversy. “Persistence of a false lumen following repair for type A aortic dissection has been reported to be associated with poor prognosis and reduced long-term survival,” Dr. Lawton and her colleagues said.

“Others have reported a patent false lumen was not an independent predictor of late reoperation, but was a predictor of aortic growth following repair of type A aortic dissection.”

The study authors said one limit of their findings is its retrospective nature, but they also said that a prospective, randomized trial would be difficult to conduct.

None of the study coauthors had any relationships to disclose. They presented their original data at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Aortic Symposium, April 24-25, 2014, in New York.

Many techniques for repair of aortic dissection have evolved, but no trials have compared those techniques to determine which is the best. However, a study team has attempted to evaluate a surgical approach (the “David technique”) that includes three specific steps – no aortic cross clamp, the use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA), and the antegrade resumption of cardiopulmonary bypass. They found that this approach yielded significantly better long-term outcomes than did other approaches tried.

The study investigators, led by Dr. Jennifer S. Lawton of Washington University in St. Louis, reported their findings in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015 [doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.023]). “We hypothesized that a surgical strategy to prevent cross-clamp injury or false lumen pressurization would be associated with reduced morbidity, mortality, persistent false lumen patency, and improved survival,” Dr. Lawton and her coauthors wrote. “This study was designed to determine the differences in outcomes between operative techniques.”

The study evaluated 196 patients who had surgery for acute type A aortic dissection over 17 years. Group 1, which comprised 49 patients, had the operation according to the protocol that involved the three specific steps, as Dr. Tirone David of the University of Toronto first reported in 1999 (Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1999;67:1999-2001) — the “David technique,” as the study authors called it. Group 2 consisted of patients whose repair involved a variety of techniques, including one or two steps of the David technique but not all three.

Study endpoints were 30-day mortality rate, postoperative adverse events, presence of a false aortic lumen, and overall survival, the latter defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date or death or last follow-up. The evaluation included examination of patients’ latest CT scan or MRI that was at least 6 months after the operation for false lumen, but only 78 patients had imaging at that interval.

Patients in Group 1 had a higher rate of persistent false lumen – 74% vs. 68% in Group 2. Thirty-day mortality was 6.1% in Group 1 and 15.7% in Group 2, but Dr. Lawton and her coauthors said this difference was not statistically significant.

Survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years among both groups were “consistent with published ranges,” the authors said. At 5 years, the predicted survival was 86% for Group 1 and 56% for Group 2; and at 10 years, 72% and 37% respectively.

The study authors acknowledged the controversy that surrounds the use of retrograde resumption of cardiopulmonary bypass after replacement of the ascending aorta and that there’s no consensus on which method is best for resuming cardiopulmonary bypass after repair of a type A aortic dissection.

The study also found no difference in the incidence of false lumen between the two groups, but again, this is a source of controversy. “Persistence of a false lumen following repair for type A aortic dissection has been reported to be associated with poor prognosis and reduced long-term survival,” Dr. Lawton and her colleagues said.

“Others have reported a patent false lumen was not an independent predictor of late reoperation, but was a predictor of aortic growth following repair of type A aortic dissection.”

The study authors said one limit of their findings is its retrospective nature, but they also said that a prospective, randomized trial would be difficult to conduct.

None of the study coauthors had any relationships to disclose. They presented their original data at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Aortic Symposium, April 24-25, 2014, in New York.

Many techniques for repair of aortic dissection have evolved, but no trials have compared those techniques to determine which is the best. However, a study team has attempted to evaluate a surgical approach (the “David technique”) that includes three specific steps – no aortic cross clamp, the use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA), and the antegrade resumption of cardiopulmonary bypass. They found that this approach yielded significantly better long-term outcomes than did other approaches tried.

The study investigators, led by Dr. Jennifer S. Lawton of Washington University in St. Louis, reported their findings in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015 [doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.023]). “We hypothesized that a surgical strategy to prevent cross-clamp injury or false lumen pressurization would be associated with reduced morbidity, mortality, persistent false lumen patency, and improved survival,” Dr. Lawton and her coauthors wrote. “This study was designed to determine the differences in outcomes between operative techniques.”

The study evaluated 196 patients who had surgery for acute type A aortic dissection over 17 years. Group 1, which comprised 49 patients, had the operation according to the protocol that involved the three specific steps, as Dr. Tirone David of the University of Toronto first reported in 1999 (Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1999;67:1999-2001) — the “David technique,” as the study authors called it. Group 2 consisted of patients whose repair involved a variety of techniques, including one or two steps of the David technique but not all three.

Study endpoints were 30-day mortality rate, postoperative adverse events, presence of a false aortic lumen, and overall survival, the latter defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date or death or last follow-up. The evaluation included examination of patients’ latest CT scan or MRI that was at least 6 months after the operation for false lumen, but only 78 patients had imaging at that interval.

Patients in Group 1 had a higher rate of persistent false lumen – 74% vs. 68% in Group 2. Thirty-day mortality was 6.1% in Group 1 and 15.7% in Group 2, but Dr. Lawton and her coauthors said this difference was not statistically significant.

Survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years among both groups were “consistent with published ranges,” the authors said. At 5 years, the predicted survival was 86% for Group 1 and 56% for Group 2; and at 10 years, 72% and 37% respectively.

The study authors acknowledged the controversy that surrounds the use of retrograde resumption of cardiopulmonary bypass after replacement of the ascending aorta and that there’s no consensus on which method is best for resuming cardiopulmonary bypass after repair of a type A aortic dissection.

The study also found no difference in the incidence of false lumen between the two groups, but again, this is a source of controversy. “Persistence of a false lumen following repair for type A aortic dissection has been reported to be associated with poor prognosis and reduced long-term survival,” Dr. Lawton and her colleagues said.

“Others have reported a patent false lumen was not an independent predictor of late reoperation, but was a predictor of aortic growth following repair of type A aortic dissection.”

The study authors said one limit of their findings is its retrospective nature, but they also said that a prospective, randomized trial would be difficult to conduct.

None of the study coauthors had any relationships to disclose. They presented their original data at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Aortic Symposium, April 24-25, 2014, in New York.

For patients with esophageal cancer, salvage surgery after definitive chemoradiotherapy had similar mortality and morbidity rates, and similar survival outcomes, to the combination of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and planned surgery, according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative to highly invasive surgical resection, which carries a significant rate of morbidity and mortality; however, recent data indicate that 50% of patients with complete response to dCRT experience tumor recurrence.

“Our study demonstrated a similar survival and recurrence pattern for the SALV [salvage surgery after definitive chemoradiotherapy] and NCRS [neoadjuvant chemoradiation and planned surgery] groups, potentially validating an approach of dCRT with reserved SALV for persistent or recurrent disease. Importantly, there were no differences in oncologic safety of surgery, including extent of nodal dissection, between the SALV and NCRS groups,” wrote Dr. Sheraz Markar, a clinical research fellow from Imperial College, London, and colleagues (Journ. Clin. Onc. 2015 July 20 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.59.9092]).

The retrospective study compared 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent SALV with 540 patients who received NCRS at European centers from 2000 to 2010. After a median follow up of 54 months, the SALV and NCRS groups had similar rates of 3-year overall survival (43.3% vs. 40.1% ) and disease-free survival (39.2% vs. 32.8%). The two groups also had similar rates tumor recurrence: overall (46.8% vs. 47.9%), locoregional (18.8% vs. 15.9%), distant (24.3% vs. 28.1%) and mixed (13.0% vs. 13.5%).

The SALV and NCRS groups had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs. 9.3%) and morbidity (63.6% vs. 58.9%), but SALV patients had significantly more complications from anastomotic leak (17.2% vs. 10.7%) and surgical site infection (18.5% vs. 12.2%).

Subset analysis of the SALV group showed that patients who received a total radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (compared with SALV patients who received a lower dose) had significantly increased in-hospital mortality (27.8% vs. 4.3%; P < .001), overall morbidity (75.9% vs. 61%; P = .039), anastomotic leak (27.8% vs. 15%; P = .023), surgical site infection (29.6% vs. 16.1%; P = .02), and pulmonary complications (55.6% vs. 40.2%; P = .038).

“Currently, there is no evidence in terms of locoregional control or survival benefit to support a high total radiation dose (> 50 Gy) in patients receiving dCRT,” according to the researchers, who noted that the findings suggest, “an upper threshold of 50 Gy should be used in these patients to optimize the benefits of dCRT without compromising the safety of SALV, if required.”

Patients who underwent SALV at high-volume centers had significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality (6.3% vs. 16.2%; P = .009) and overall morbidity (58.8% vs. 80.9%; P = .001) compared with procedures done at low-volume centers.

Compared with recurrent disease, patients with persistent disease after dCRT had poorer long-term prognoses, suggesting a more aggressive tumor biology. Early identification of CRT-resistant tumors to allow early surgical treatment is an important area for future investigation, the investigators said.

For patients with esophageal cancer, salvage surgery after definitive chemoradiotherapy had similar mortality and morbidity rates, and similar survival outcomes, to the combination of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and planned surgery, according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative to highly invasive surgical resection, which carries a significant rate of morbidity and mortality; however, recent data indicate that 50% of patients with complete response to dCRT experience tumor recurrence.

“Our study demonstrated a similar survival and recurrence pattern for the SALV [salvage surgery after definitive chemoradiotherapy] and NCRS [neoadjuvant chemoradiation and planned surgery] groups, potentially validating an approach of dCRT with reserved SALV for persistent or recurrent disease. Importantly, there were no differences in oncologic safety of surgery, including extent of nodal dissection, between the SALV and NCRS groups,” wrote Dr. Sheraz Markar, a clinical research fellow from Imperial College, London, and colleagues (Journ. Clin. Onc. 2015 July 20 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.59.9092]).

The retrospective study compared 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent SALV with 540 patients who received NCRS at European centers from 2000 to 2010. After a median follow up of 54 months, the SALV and NCRS groups had similar rates of 3-year overall survival (43.3% vs. 40.1% ) and disease-free survival (39.2% vs. 32.8%). The two groups also had similar rates tumor recurrence: overall (46.8% vs. 47.9%), locoregional (18.8% vs. 15.9%), distant (24.3% vs. 28.1%) and mixed (13.0% vs. 13.5%).

The SALV and NCRS groups had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs. 9.3%) and morbidity (63.6% vs. 58.9%), but SALV patients had significantly more complications from anastomotic leak (17.2% vs. 10.7%) and surgical site infection (18.5% vs. 12.2%).

Subset analysis of the SALV group showed that patients who received a total radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (compared with SALV patients who received a lower dose) had significantly increased in-hospital mortality (27.8% vs. 4.3%; P < .001), overall morbidity (75.9% vs. 61%; P = .039), anastomotic leak (27.8% vs. 15%; P = .023), surgical site infection (29.6% vs. 16.1%; P = .02), and pulmonary complications (55.6% vs. 40.2%; P = .038).

“Currently, there is no evidence in terms of locoregional control or survival benefit to support a high total radiation dose (> 50 Gy) in patients receiving dCRT,” according to the researchers, who noted that the findings suggest, “an upper threshold of 50 Gy should be used in these patients to optimize the benefits of dCRT without compromising the safety of SALV, if required.”

Patients who underwent SALV at high-volume centers had significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality (6.3% vs. 16.2%; P = .009) and overall morbidity (58.8% vs. 80.9%; P = .001) compared with procedures done at low-volume centers.

Compared with recurrent disease, patients with persistent disease after dCRT had poorer long-term prognoses, suggesting a more aggressive tumor biology. Early identification of CRT-resistant tumors to allow early surgical treatment is an important area for future investigation, the investigators said.

For patients with esophageal cancer, salvage surgery after definitive chemoradiotherapy had similar mortality and morbidity rates, and similar survival outcomes, to the combination of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and planned surgery, according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative to highly invasive surgical resection, which carries a significant rate of morbidity and mortality; however, recent data indicate that 50% of patients with complete response to dCRT experience tumor recurrence.

“Our study demonstrated a similar survival and recurrence pattern for the SALV [salvage surgery after definitive chemoradiotherapy] and NCRS [neoadjuvant chemoradiation and planned surgery] groups, potentially validating an approach of dCRT with reserved SALV for persistent or recurrent disease. Importantly, there were no differences in oncologic safety of surgery, including extent of nodal dissection, between the SALV and NCRS groups,” wrote Dr. Sheraz Markar, a clinical research fellow from Imperial College, London, and colleagues (Journ. Clin. Onc. 2015 July 20 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.59.9092]).

The retrospective study compared 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent SALV with 540 patients who received NCRS at European centers from 2000 to 2010. After a median follow up of 54 months, the SALV and NCRS groups had similar rates of 3-year overall survival (43.3% vs. 40.1% ) and disease-free survival (39.2% vs. 32.8%). The two groups also had similar rates tumor recurrence: overall (46.8% vs. 47.9%), locoregional (18.8% vs. 15.9%), distant (24.3% vs. 28.1%) and mixed (13.0% vs. 13.5%).

The SALV and NCRS groups had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs. 9.3%) and morbidity (63.6% vs. 58.9%), but SALV patients had significantly more complications from anastomotic leak (17.2% vs. 10.7%) and surgical site infection (18.5% vs. 12.2%).

Subset analysis of the SALV group showed that patients who received a total radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (compared with SALV patients who received a lower dose) had significantly increased in-hospital mortality (27.8% vs. 4.3%; P < .001), overall morbidity (75.9% vs. 61%; P = .039), anastomotic leak (27.8% vs. 15%; P = .023), surgical site infection (29.6% vs. 16.1%; P = .02), and pulmonary complications (55.6% vs. 40.2%; P = .038).

“Currently, there is no evidence in terms of locoregional control or survival benefit to support a high total radiation dose (> 50 Gy) in patients receiving dCRT,” according to the researchers, who noted that the findings suggest, “an upper threshold of 50 Gy should be used in these patients to optimize the benefits of dCRT without compromising the safety of SALV, if required.”

Patients who underwent SALV at high-volume centers had significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality (6.3% vs. 16.2%; P = .009) and overall morbidity (58.8% vs. 80.9%; P = .001) compared with procedures done at low-volume centers.

Compared with recurrent disease, patients with persistent disease after dCRT had poorer long-term prognoses, suggesting a more aggressive tumor biology. Early identification of CRT-resistant tumors to allow early surgical treatment is an important area for future investigation, the investigators said.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is fatal to 90% of patients, indicating a profound need for new therapeutic agents, according to Zhuewn Wang and her colleagues.

The search for genes involved in oncogenesis provides one avenue for finding potential targets. Ms. Wang and her colleagues performed a laboratory study at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, to examine the results of the overexpression of DKK3 (the gene for the Dickkopf-3 protein [DKK3]) in DKK3-transfected tissue-cultured esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cell lines. They found that DKK3 overexpression correlated with significantly increased proliferation and Matrigel invasion ability – both known to be important oncogenic traits (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015;150:377-85).

Courtesy of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery

DKK3 was overexpressed (greater than twofold) in 76% (72/95) of esophageal adenocarcinomas tested. In addition, the DKK3 protein was present at moderate to high levels in 47% (29/62) of esophageal adenocarcinomas as shown by tissue microarray. Nodal metastases were also significantly increased in patients with esophageal adenocarcinomas highly overexpressing DKK3 (28/32) vs. non–highly expressing EAC tumors (42/63).

In vitro studies showed that stable transfection of DKK3 in an EAC cell line significantly increased proliferation and Matrigel invasion. The researchers also found that the levels of SMAD4, a key mediator of the transforming growth factor–beta pathway, increased after activin treatment of the transfected cell line, and siSMAD4 significantly decreased Matrigel invasion, suggesting that DKK3 acts through the transforming growth factor–beta pathway, according to the researchers.

Additionally, the transfected cells showed increased endothelial tube formation, and they were significantly more resistant to 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. This finding correlates with the fact that DKK3 expression was found to be significantly higher in chemoresistant esophageal adenocarcinomas, the investigators reported.

In their animal model system (NOD/SCIDg mice), injection of the transfected cells resulted in tumors at all sites (8/8), whereas vector-only cells grew in only one of eight sites.

“The results of the current study suggest that DKK3 may play an important role in tumor growth and invasion in EAC. DKK3 is overexpressed in a significant number of esophageal adenocarcinomas and targeting DKK3 and its downstream mediators may be beneficial in the prevention and treatment of micrometastatic disease and potentially decreasing disease recurrence,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is fatal to 90% of patients, indicating a profound need for new therapeutic agents, according to Zhuewn Wang and her colleagues.

The search for genes involved in oncogenesis provides one avenue for finding potential targets. Ms. Wang and her colleagues performed a laboratory study at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, to examine the results of the overexpression of DKK3 (the gene for the Dickkopf-3 protein [DKK3]) in DKK3-transfected tissue-cultured esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cell lines. They found that DKK3 overexpression correlated with significantly increased proliferation and Matrigel invasion ability – both known to be important oncogenic traits (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015;150:377-85).

Courtesy of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery

DKK3 was overexpressed (greater than twofold) in 76% (72/95) of esophageal adenocarcinomas tested. In addition, the DKK3 protein was present at moderate to high levels in 47% (29/62) of esophageal adenocarcinomas as shown by tissue microarray. Nodal metastases were also significantly increased in patients with esophageal adenocarcinomas highly overexpressing DKK3 (28/32) vs. non–highly expressing EAC tumors (42/63).

In vitro studies showed that stable transfection of DKK3 in an EAC cell line significantly increased proliferation and Matrigel invasion. The researchers also found that the levels of SMAD4, a key mediator of the transforming growth factor–beta pathway, increased after activin treatment of the transfected cell line, and siSMAD4 significantly decreased Matrigel invasion, suggesting that DKK3 acts through the transforming growth factor–beta pathway, according to the researchers.

Additionally, the transfected cells showed increased endothelial tube formation, and they were significantly more resistant to 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. This finding correlates with the fact that DKK3 expression was found to be significantly higher in chemoresistant esophageal adenocarcinomas, the investigators reported.

In their animal model system (NOD/SCIDg mice), injection of the transfected cells resulted in tumors at all sites (8/8), whereas vector-only cells grew in only one of eight sites.

“The results of the current study suggest that DKK3 may play an important role in tumor growth and invasion in EAC. DKK3 is overexpressed in a significant number of esophageal adenocarcinomas and targeting DKK3 and its downstream mediators may be beneficial in the prevention and treatment of micrometastatic disease and potentially decreasing disease recurrence,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is fatal to 90% of patients, indicating a profound need for new therapeutic agents, according to Zhuewn Wang and her colleagues.

The search for genes involved in oncogenesis provides one avenue for finding potential targets. Ms. Wang and her colleagues performed a laboratory study at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, to examine the results of the overexpression of DKK3 (the gene for the Dickkopf-3 protein [DKK3]) in DKK3-transfected tissue-cultured esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cell lines. They found that DKK3 overexpression correlated with significantly increased proliferation and Matrigel invasion ability – both known to be important oncogenic traits (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015;150:377-85).

Courtesy of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery

DKK3 was overexpressed (greater than twofold) in 76% (72/95) of esophageal adenocarcinomas tested. In addition, the DKK3 protein was present at moderate to high levels in 47% (29/62) of esophageal adenocarcinomas as shown by tissue microarray. Nodal metastases were also significantly increased in patients with esophageal adenocarcinomas highly overexpressing DKK3 (28/32) vs. non–highly expressing EAC tumors (42/63).

In vitro studies showed that stable transfection of DKK3 in an EAC cell line significantly increased proliferation and Matrigel invasion. The researchers also found that the levels of SMAD4, a key mediator of the transforming growth factor–beta pathway, increased after activin treatment of the transfected cell line, and siSMAD4 significantly decreased Matrigel invasion, suggesting that DKK3 acts through the transforming growth factor–beta pathway, according to the researchers.

Additionally, the transfected cells showed increased endothelial tube formation, and they were significantly more resistant to 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. This finding correlates with the fact that DKK3 expression was found to be significantly higher in chemoresistant esophageal adenocarcinomas, the investigators reported.

In their animal model system (NOD/SCIDg mice), injection of the transfected cells resulted in tumors at all sites (8/8), whereas vector-only cells grew in only one of eight sites.

“The results of the current study suggest that DKK3 may play an important role in tumor growth and invasion in EAC. DKK3 is overexpressed in a significant number of esophageal adenocarcinomas and targeting DKK3 and its downstream mediators may be beneficial in the prevention and treatment of micrometastatic disease and potentially decreasing disease recurrence,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Talent facilitates team performance, but only up to a point, depending on the type of team. For highly interdependent teams, there is a threshold where the benefits of more talent decrease and eventually become detrimental rather than beneficial, according to an analysis of five studies performed by Roderick I. Swaab and his colleagues.

Surveys across industries and countries show that organizations consider talent attraction is their top priority, presumably based on the belief that more talent is better and the relationship between talent and team performance is linear and monotonic, they stated in Psychological Science (2014;25:1581-91)

The researchers analyzed the results of five studies they performed to investigate this relationship, comparing the impact of talent on team performance in the highly interdependent sports soccer (World Cup performance) and basketball (NBA), compared with the less interdependent sport of baseball (MLB).

In the case of soccer, team performance data were based on the average Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) rankings of national teams during the 2010 and 2014 World Cup qualification periods. Top talent was assessed by dividing the team’s numbers of players in each national team active in one of the world’s elite clubs divided by the total number of players on the national team.

In the case of the NBA, top talent was determined using the individual players’ estimated wins added (EWA) as determined over a 10-year period (2002-2012), with an index determining whether a player was in the top one-third (1) or not (0). Team performance was measured using each team’s end-of-year win percentage.

For baseball, top talent was determined using a player’s wins above replacement statistic (WAR), which is the number of wins a player contributes relative to a freely available minor-league player. Team performance was measured using each team’s win percentage.

In their results, basketball and soccer, the two most interdependent of the three sports, both showed a significant quadratic effect in which top talent benefited performance only up to a point, after which the marginal benefit of talent decreased and turned negative.

These results were in contrast to those seen with baseball. “As we predicted, the effect of top talent never turned negative in baseball, a sport in which task interdependence is relatively low. Thus there was no too-much-talent effect in baseball unlike in football [soccer] and basketball” according to the researchers.

“We predict that the too-much-talent effect will be found in other organizational contexts as well,” they added.

“Just as a colony of high-performing chickens competing for dominance suffers decrements in overall egg production and increases in bird mortality, teams with too much talent appear to divert attention away from coordination as team members peck at each other in their attempts to establish intergroup standing. In many cases, too much talent can be the seed of failure,” Mr. Swaab and his colleagues concluded.

The authors all declared that they had no conflicts of interest relative to the paper.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Talent facilitates team performance, but only up to a point, depending on the type of team. For highly interdependent teams, there is a threshold where the benefits of more talent decrease and eventually become detrimental rather than beneficial, according to an analysis of five studies performed by Roderick I. Swaab and his colleagues.

Surveys across industries and countries show that organizations consider talent attraction is their top priority, presumably based on the belief that more talent is better and the relationship between talent and team performance is linear and monotonic, they stated in Psychological Science (2014;25:1581-91)

The researchers analyzed the results of five studies they performed to investigate this relationship, comparing the impact of talent on team performance in the highly interdependent sports soccer (World Cup performance) and basketball (NBA), compared with the less interdependent sport of baseball (MLB).

In the case of soccer, team performance data were based on the average Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) rankings of national teams during the 2010 and 2014 World Cup qualification periods. Top talent was assessed by dividing the team’s numbers of players in each national team active in one of the world’s elite clubs divided by the total number of players on the national team.

In the case of the NBA, top talent was determined using the individual players’ estimated wins added (EWA) as determined over a 10-year period (2002-2012), with an index determining whether a player was in the top one-third (1) or not (0). Team performance was measured using each team’s end-of-year win percentage.

For baseball, top talent was determined using a player’s wins above replacement statistic (WAR), which is the number of wins a player contributes relative to a freely available minor-league player. Team performance was measured using each team’s win percentage.

In their results, basketball and soccer, the two most interdependent of the three sports, both showed a significant quadratic effect in which top talent benefited performance only up to a point, after which the marginal benefit of talent decreased and turned negative.

These results were in contrast to those seen with baseball. “As we predicted, the effect of top talent never turned negative in baseball, a sport in which task interdependence is relatively low. Thus there was no too-much-talent effect in baseball unlike in football [soccer] and basketball” according to the researchers.

“We predict that the too-much-talent effect will be found in other organizational contexts as well,” they added.

“Just as a colony of high-performing chickens competing for dominance suffers decrements in overall egg production and increases in bird mortality, teams with too much talent appear to divert attention away from coordination as team members peck at each other in their attempts to establish intergroup standing. In many cases, too much talent can be the seed of failure,” Mr. Swaab and his colleagues concluded.

The authors all declared that they had no conflicts of interest relative to the paper.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Talent facilitates team performance, but only up to a point, depending on the type of team. For highly interdependent teams, there is a threshold where the benefits of more talent decrease and eventually become detrimental rather than beneficial, according to an analysis of five studies performed by Roderick I. Swaab and his colleagues.

Surveys across industries and countries show that organizations consider talent attraction is their top priority, presumably based on the belief that more talent is better and the relationship between talent and team performance is linear and monotonic, they stated in Psychological Science (2014;25:1581-91)

The researchers analyzed the results of five studies they performed to investigate this relationship, comparing the impact of talent on team performance in the highly interdependent sports soccer (World Cup performance) and basketball (NBA), compared with the less interdependent sport of baseball (MLB).

In the case of soccer, team performance data were based on the average Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) rankings of national teams during the 2010 and 2014 World Cup qualification periods. Top talent was assessed by dividing the team’s numbers of players in each national team active in one of the world’s elite clubs divided by the total number of players on the national team.

In the case of the NBA, top talent was determined using the individual players’ estimated wins added (EWA) as determined over a 10-year period (2002-2012), with an index determining whether a player was in the top one-third (1) or not (0). Team performance was measured using each team’s end-of-year win percentage.

For baseball, top talent was determined using a player’s wins above replacement statistic (WAR), which is the number of wins a player contributes relative to a freely available minor-league player. Team performance was measured using each team’s win percentage.

In their results, basketball and soccer, the two most interdependent of the three sports, both showed a significant quadratic effect in which top talent benefited performance only up to a point, after which the marginal benefit of talent decreased and turned negative.

These results were in contrast to those seen with baseball. “As we predicted, the effect of top talent never turned negative in baseball, a sport in which task interdependence is relatively low. Thus there was no too-much-talent effect in baseball unlike in football [soccer] and basketball” according to the researchers.

“We predict that the too-much-talent effect will be found in other organizational contexts as well,” they added.

“Just as a colony of high-performing chickens competing for dominance suffers decrements in overall egg production and increases in bird mortality, teams with too much talent appear to divert attention away from coordination as team members peck at each other in their attempts to establish intergroup standing. In many cases, too much talent can be the seed of failure,” Mr. Swaab and his colleagues concluded.

The authors all declared that they had no conflicts of interest relative to the paper.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

The rate of diabetic coronary artery bypass graft patients has increased more than fivefold in recent decades, and these patients are more likely to have worse outcomes and higher treatment costs, a study showed.

The percentage of patients who had diabetes among all those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) increased from 7% in the 1970s to 37% in the 2000s, according to a database study of 55,501 patients operated on at the Cleveland Clinic.

Frontline Medical News/Martin Allred

Patients were identified and preoperative, operative, and postoperative variables were identified, resulting in 45,139 nondiabetic patients assessed and 10,362 diabetic patients (defined as those diabetic patients pharmacologically treated with either insulin or an oral agent) evaluated. The endpoints assessed were in-hospital adverse outcomes as determined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database, in-hospital direct technical costs, and time-related mortality, according to Dr. Sajjad Raza and his colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic in the August issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (150:294-301).

Compared with nondiabetics, diabetic patients undergoing CABG were older and were more likely to be overweight, to be women, and to have a history of heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, carotid disease, hypertension, renal failure, stroke, and advanced coronary artery disease. Over time, the cardiovascular risk profile of the entire population changed, becoming even more pronounced for all patients, but more so for diabetics.

Overall long-term survival at 6 months and at 1, 5 10, 15, and 20 years for diabetic patients was 95%, 94%, 80%, 54%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, compared with 97%, 97%, 90%, 76%, 59%, and 42% for nondiabetic patients, a significant difference at P <.0001.

Propensity matching of similar diabetic and nondiabetic patients showed that deep sternal wound infection and stroke occurred significantly more often in diabetics, although there were no significant differences in cost remaining after matching, even though the length of stay greater than 14 days remained higher for diabetic patients.

Among diabetics, overall survival at 6 months and at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after CABG was 95%, 94%, 80%, 54%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, compared with overall survival in nondiabetics at 97%, 97%, 90%, 76%, 59%, and 42%, respectively, a significant difference (P <.0001).

“Although long-term survival after CABG is worse in diabetics and high-risk nondiabetics, it is important to note that, in general, high-risk patients reap the greatest survival benefit from CABG. Moreover, using surgical techniques that are associated with better long-term survival after CABG in diabetics could further enhance this survival benefit,” Dr. Raza and his colleagues wrote.

“Diabetes is both a marker for high-risk, resource-intensive, and expensive care after CABG and an independent risk factor for reduced long-term survival,” they added. “Diabetic patients and those with a similar high-risk profile set to undergo CABG should be made aware that their risks of postoperative complications are higher than average, and measures should be taken to reduce their postoperative complications,” Dr. Raza and his colleagues concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

The rate of diabetic coronary artery bypass graft patients has increased more than fivefold in recent decades, and these patients are more likely to have worse outcomes and higher treatment costs, a study showed.

The percentage of patients who had diabetes among all those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) increased from 7% in the 1970s to 37% in the 2000s, according to a database study of 55,501 patients operated on at the Cleveland Clinic.

Frontline Medical News/Martin Allred

Patients were identified and preoperative, operative, and postoperative variables were identified, resulting in 45,139 nondiabetic patients assessed and 10,362 diabetic patients (defined as those diabetic patients pharmacologically treated with either insulin or an oral agent) evaluated. The endpoints assessed were in-hospital adverse outcomes as determined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database, in-hospital direct technical costs, and time-related mortality, according to Dr. Sajjad Raza and his colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic in the August issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (150:294-301).

Compared with nondiabetics, diabetic patients undergoing CABG were older and were more likely to be overweight, to be women, and to have a history of heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, carotid disease, hypertension, renal failure, stroke, and advanced coronary artery disease. Over time, the cardiovascular risk profile of the entire population changed, becoming even more pronounced for all patients, but more so for diabetics.

Overall long-term survival at 6 months and at 1, 5 10, 15, and 20 years for diabetic patients was 95%, 94%, 80%, 54%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, compared with 97%, 97%, 90%, 76%, 59%, and 42% for nondiabetic patients, a significant difference at P <.0001.

Propensity matching of similar diabetic and nondiabetic patients showed that deep sternal wound infection and stroke occurred significantly more often in diabetics, although there were no significant differences in cost remaining after matching, even though the length of stay greater than 14 days remained higher for diabetic patients.

Among diabetics, overall survival at 6 months and at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after CABG was 95%, 94%, 80%, 54%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, compared with overall survival in nondiabetics at 97%, 97%, 90%, 76%, 59%, and 42%, respectively, a significant difference (P <.0001).

“Although long-term survival after CABG is worse in diabetics and high-risk nondiabetics, it is important to note that, in general, high-risk patients reap the greatest survival benefit from CABG. Moreover, using surgical techniques that are associated with better long-term survival after CABG in diabetics could further enhance this survival benefit,” Dr. Raza and his colleagues wrote.

“Diabetes is both a marker for high-risk, resource-intensive, and expensive care after CABG and an independent risk factor for reduced long-term survival,” they added. “Diabetic patients and those with a similar high-risk profile set to undergo CABG should be made aware that their risks of postoperative complications are higher than average, and measures should be taken to reduce their postoperative complications,” Dr. Raza and his colleagues concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

The rate of diabetic coronary artery bypass graft patients has increased more than fivefold in recent decades, and these patients are more likely to have worse outcomes and higher treatment costs, a study showed.

The percentage of patients who had diabetes among all those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) increased from 7% in the 1970s to 37% in the 2000s, according to a database study of 55,501 patients operated on at the Cleveland Clinic.

Frontline Medical News/Martin Allred

Patients were identified and preoperative, operative, and postoperative variables were identified, resulting in 45,139 nondiabetic patients assessed and 10,362 diabetic patients (defined as those diabetic patients pharmacologically treated with either insulin or an oral agent) evaluated. The endpoints assessed were in-hospital adverse outcomes as determined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database, in-hospital direct technical costs, and time-related mortality, according to Dr. Sajjad Raza and his colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic in the August issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (150:294-301).

Compared with nondiabetics, diabetic patients undergoing CABG were older and were more likely to be overweight, to be women, and to have a history of heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, carotid disease, hypertension, renal failure, stroke, and advanced coronary artery disease. Over time, the cardiovascular risk profile of the entire population changed, becoming even more pronounced for all patients, but more so for diabetics.

Overall long-term survival at 6 months and at 1, 5 10, 15, and 20 years for diabetic patients was 95%, 94%, 80%, 54%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, compared with 97%, 97%, 90%, 76%, 59%, and 42% for nondiabetic patients, a significant difference at P <.0001.

Propensity matching of similar diabetic and nondiabetic patients showed that deep sternal wound infection and stroke occurred significantly more often in diabetics, although there were no significant differences in cost remaining after matching, even though the length of stay greater than 14 days remained higher for diabetic patients.

Among diabetics, overall survival at 6 months and at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after CABG was 95%, 94%, 80%, 54%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, compared with overall survival in nondiabetics at 97%, 97%, 90%, 76%, 59%, and 42%, respectively, a significant difference (P <.0001).

“Although long-term survival after CABG is worse in diabetics and high-risk nondiabetics, it is important to note that, in general, high-risk patients reap the greatest survival benefit from CABG. Moreover, using surgical techniques that are associated with better long-term survival after CABG in diabetics could further enhance this survival benefit,” Dr. Raza and his colleagues wrote.

“Diabetes is both a marker for high-risk, resource-intensive, and expensive care after CABG and an independent risk factor for reduced long-term survival,” they added. “Diabetic patients and those with a similar high-risk profile set to undergo CABG should be made aware that their risks of postoperative complications are higher than average, and measures should be taken to reduce their postoperative complications,” Dr. Raza and his colleagues concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Neoaortoiliac system reconstruction or cryopreserved allografts should be used first-line to replace infected aortic endografts, followed by antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts, according to a review of 206 cases from vascular surgery centers across the United States.

In the study, 75 patients had cryoallograft reconstruction, mostly cryoartery, or neoaortoiliac system (NAIS) reconstruction with femoral vein; 53 (71%) were alive at 5 years. Forty-nine of the 92 (53%) patients reconstructed with antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts also made it to 5 years, while two of 19 (11%) reconstructed with untreated prosthetic grafts survived that long.

The cases were reconstructed inline. The index procedure had been endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in 165, and thoracic EVAR (TEVAR) in 21, with a better 5-year survival for the EVAR group. Another 11 patients had extra-anatomic reconstruction after initial EVAR, and their 5-year survival was comparable to inline reconstruction at about 50% overall. Nine other patients were managed medically; the majority died soon after being diagnosed with an infected graft.

“Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion to diagnose symptomatic postop EVAR and TEVAR patients with graft infection, especially in those patients with chronic infections or contaminated index procedures. NAIS and cryopreserved allografts require longer procedure times” – about 500 minutes versus about 350 minutes for prosthetic grafts – “but offer improved survival, while prosthetics soaked in antibiotic do better than prosthetic grafts alone,” said lead investigator Dr. Audra Duncan, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Patients were treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the University of California, Los Angeles, and 15 other vascular centers around the country during 2004-2014. They were 68 years old on average, and 78% were men. Comorbidities included hypertension in 84%, smoking in 58%, and renal insufficiency in 30%.

On multivariate analysis, chronic infection, polymicrobial infection, and prosthetic reconstruction, among other things, predicted mortality after reconstruction.

Graft infections were primarily polymicrobial and fungal, and were diagnosed a mean of 716 days after the initial implant, generally by CT. Symptoms included pain in 66%, mostly in the back and abdomen, and fever and chills, also in 66%. Streptococcus, Escherichia coli, and both methicillin-sensitive and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus were among the most commonly isolated organisms. No particular type of graft seemed more likely to get infected.

The sources of infection are unknown, but index procedures were complicated by urinary tract, groin, and other infections in about one-third of patients. About one-third also had interval procedures, including endoleak intervention. About 14% of patients were thought to have had a contaminated index procedure.

Patients stayed in the hospital a mean of 24 days after reconstruction. Early complications included persistent sepsis in 27 patients, myocardial infarction in 9, recurrent infection in 9, and pneumonia in 8. Mortality at 30 days was 11%.

Nineteen replacement grafts – mostly unsoaked Dacron – were explanted after a mean of 540 days. Persistent sepsis after reconstruction was associated with unsoaked Dacron and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts.

To prevent graft infections, Mayo patients “take an antibiotic for any invasive procedure,” including dental work. “I am not sure we have data to support that, but it is something we do,” Dr. Duncan said.

Dr. Duncan has no relevant disclosures.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Neoaortoiliac system reconstruction or cryopreserved allografts should be used first-line to replace infected aortic endografts, followed by antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts, according to a review of 206 cases from vascular surgery centers across the United States.

In the study, 75 patients had cryoallograft reconstruction, mostly cryoartery, or neoaortoiliac system (NAIS) reconstruction with femoral vein; 53 (71%) were alive at 5 years. Forty-nine of the 92 (53%) patients reconstructed with antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts also made it to 5 years, while two of 19 (11%) reconstructed with untreated prosthetic grafts survived that long.

The cases were reconstructed inline. The index procedure had been endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in 165, and thoracic EVAR (TEVAR) in 21, with a better 5-year survival for the EVAR group. Another 11 patients had extra-anatomic reconstruction after initial EVAR, and their 5-year survival was comparable to inline reconstruction at about 50% overall. Nine other patients were managed medically; the majority died soon after being diagnosed with an infected graft.

“Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion to diagnose symptomatic postop EVAR and TEVAR patients with graft infection, especially in those patients with chronic infections or contaminated index procedures. NAIS and cryopreserved allografts require longer procedure times” – about 500 minutes versus about 350 minutes for prosthetic grafts – “but offer improved survival, while prosthetics soaked in antibiotic do better than prosthetic grafts alone,” said lead investigator Dr. Audra Duncan, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Patients were treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the University of California, Los Angeles, and 15 other vascular centers around the country during 2004-2014. They were 68 years old on average, and 78% were men. Comorbidities included hypertension in 84%, smoking in 58%, and renal insufficiency in 30%.

On multivariate analysis, chronic infection, polymicrobial infection, and prosthetic reconstruction, among other things, predicted mortality after reconstruction.

Graft infections were primarily polymicrobial and fungal, and were diagnosed a mean of 716 days after the initial implant, generally by CT. Symptoms included pain in 66%, mostly in the back and abdomen, and fever and chills, also in 66%. Streptococcus, Escherichia coli, and both methicillin-sensitive and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus were among the most commonly isolated organisms. No particular type of graft seemed more likely to get infected.

The sources of infection are unknown, but index procedures were complicated by urinary tract, groin, and other infections in about one-third of patients. About one-third also had interval procedures, including endoleak intervention. About 14% of patients were thought to have had a contaminated index procedure.

Patients stayed in the hospital a mean of 24 days after reconstruction. Early complications included persistent sepsis in 27 patients, myocardial infarction in 9, recurrent infection in 9, and pneumonia in 8. Mortality at 30 days was 11%.

Nineteen replacement grafts – mostly unsoaked Dacron – were explanted after a mean of 540 days. Persistent sepsis after reconstruction was associated with unsoaked Dacron and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts.

To prevent graft infections, Mayo patients “take an antibiotic for any invasive procedure,” including dental work. “I am not sure we have data to support that, but it is something we do,” Dr. Duncan said.

Dr. Duncan has no relevant disclosures.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Neoaortoiliac system reconstruction or cryopreserved allografts should be used first-line to replace infected aortic endografts, followed by antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts, according to a review of 206 cases from vascular surgery centers across the United States.

In the study, 75 patients had cryoallograft reconstruction, mostly cryoartery, or neoaortoiliac system (NAIS) reconstruction with femoral vein; 53 (71%) were alive at 5 years. Forty-nine of the 92 (53%) patients reconstructed with antibiotic-soaked prosthetic grafts also made it to 5 years, while two of 19 (11%) reconstructed with untreated prosthetic grafts survived that long.

The cases were reconstructed inline. The index procedure had been endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in 165, and thoracic EVAR (TEVAR) in 21, with a better 5-year survival for the EVAR group. Another 11 patients had extra-anatomic reconstruction after initial EVAR, and their 5-year survival was comparable to inline reconstruction at about 50% overall. Nine other patients were managed medically; the majority died soon after being diagnosed with an infected graft.

“Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion to diagnose symptomatic postop EVAR and TEVAR patients with graft infection, especially in those patients with chronic infections or contaminated index procedures. NAIS and cryopreserved allografts require longer procedure times” – about 500 minutes versus about 350 minutes for prosthetic grafts – “but offer improved survival, while prosthetics soaked in antibiotic do better than prosthetic grafts alone,” said lead investigator Dr. Audra Duncan, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Patients were treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the University of California, Los Angeles, and 15 other vascular centers around the country during 2004-2014. They were 68 years old on average, and 78% were men. Comorbidities included hypertension in 84%, smoking in 58%, and renal insufficiency in 30%.

On multivariate analysis, chronic infection, polymicrobial infection, and prosthetic reconstruction, among other things, predicted mortality after reconstruction.

Graft infections were primarily polymicrobial and fungal, and were diagnosed a mean of 716 days after the initial implant, generally by CT. Symptoms included pain in 66%, mostly in the back and abdomen, and fever and chills, also in 66%. Streptococcus, Escherichia coli, and both methicillin-sensitive and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus were among the most commonly isolated organisms. No particular type of graft seemed more likely to get infected.

The sources of infection are unknown, but index procedures were complicated by urinary tract, groin, and other infections in about one-third of patients. About one-third also had interval procedures, including endoleak intervention. About 14% of patients were thought to have had a contaminated index procedure.

Patients stayed in the hospital a mean of 24 days after reconstruction. Early complications included persistent sepsis in 27 patients, myocardial infarction in 9, recurrent infection in 9, and pneumonia in 8. Mortality at 30 days was 11%.

Nineteen replacement grafts – mostly unsoaked Dacron – were explanted after a mean of 540 days. Persistent sepsis after reconstruction was associated with unsoaked Dacron and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts.

To prevent graft infections, Mayo patients “take an antibiotic for any invasive procedure,” including dental work. “I am not sure we have data to support that, but it is something we do,” Dr. Duncan said.

Dr. Duncan has no relevant disclosures.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

PARIS – The use of a second-generation zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent rather than a bare metal stent in conjunction with 30 days of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients deemed at high bleeding risk results in lower 1-year rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis, according to a prespecified analysis of the ZEUS trial presented at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Asked if the ZEUS results mean it’s time to take bare-metal stents (BMS) out of the cupboard and get rid of them, the study presenter, Dr. Marco Valgimigli, replied “I did so already.”

ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates Study) was an open-label, prospective study in which 1,606 patients undergoing urgent or emergent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to a thin-strut BMS or the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent, a second-generation hydrophilic polymer-based device that, uniquely, elutes 100% of the drug within the first 2 weeks. All participants were placed on an intended 30-day regimen of DAPT. The study was conducted in four European countries, explained Dr. Valgimigli of Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

This prespecified analysis focused on the 828 patients with one or more factors placing them at high bleeding risk, since the use of a drug-eluting stent (DES) with a 30-day DAPT protocol hadn’t been adequately studied in that setting, the cardiologist noted.

High bleeding risk was defined by one or more of the following: age greater than 80, being on oral anticoagulation therapy, a prior bleeding event, need for corticosteroid or NSAID therapy, known anemia, or a bleeding diathesis; 47% of study participants had more than one of these criteria.

The primary study endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, acute MI, or target vessel revascularization through 1 year of follow-up. The rate was 29% in the BMS group, compared with 22.6% in the DES group, for a highly significant 26% relative risk reduction.

The zotarolimus-eluting stent group also fared significantly better in terms of stent thrombosis and the other prespecified secondary endpoints.

Asked how the ZEUS findings have affected his own clinical practice, Dr. Valgimigli replied, “My stent of choice in patients at high bleeding risk is a second-generation DES. Since there aren’t data showing a specific second-generation DES is preferable, basically whatever I have I implant.”

He sticks to the 30-day DAPT regimen featured in the ZEUS protocol except under specific circumstances, which were allowed under the protocol. One involves staged PCI procedures, in which case the 30 days of DAPT begins after the last stent is implanted, even though the patient has been on DAPT in the interim. The other circumstance where he goes beyond 30 days of DAPT in a patient on a second-generation DES is if an ischemic event occurs down the road: “That patient is put back on DAPT and left there,” he said.

In response to another question, Dr. Valgimigli said he doesn’t believe the lower stent thrombosis rate seen in the Endeavor Sprint group in ZEUS is unique to that stent.

“If you look at any BMS versus DES study, taking the first-generation DES out of the picture, it’s quite clear that the second-generation DES are much safer than a BMS,” according to the cardiologist.

The ZEUS study was sponsored by the University of Ferrara (Italy) and funded by Medtronic. Dr. Valgimigli serves as a consultant to and/or on speakers’ bureaus for Medtronic and more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical and medical devices companies.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

PARIS – The use of a second-generation zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent rather than a bare metal stent in conjunction with 30 days of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients deemed at high bleeding risk results in lower 1-year rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis, according to a prespecified analysis of the ZEUS trial presented at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Asked if the ZEUS results mean it’s time to take bare-metal stents (BMS) out of the cupboard and get rid of them, the study presenter, Dr. Marco Valgimigli, replied “I did so already.”

ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates Study) was an open-label, prospective study in which 1,606 patients undergoing urgent or emergent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to a thin-strut BMS or the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent, a second-generation hydrophilic polymer-based device that, uniquely, elutes 100% of the drug within the first 2 weeks. All participants were placed on an intended 30-day regimen of DAPT. The study was conducted in four European countries, explained Dr. Valgimigli of Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

This prespecified analysis focused on the 828 patients with one or more factors placing them at high bleeding risk, since the use of a drug-eluting stent (DES) with a 30-day DAPT protocol hadn’t been adequately studied in that setting, the cardiologist noted.

High bleeding risk was defined by one or more of the following: age greater than 80, being on oral anticoagulation therapy, a prior bleeding event, need for corticosteroid or NSAID therapy, known anemia, or a bleeding diathesis; 47% of study participants had more than one of these criteria.

The primary study endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, acute MI, or target vessel revascularization through 1 year of follow-up. The rate was 29% in the BMS group, compared with 22.6% in the DES group, for a highly significant 26% relative risk reduction.

The zotarolimus-eluting stent group also fared significantly better in terms of stent thrombosis and the other prespecified secondary endpoints.

Asked how the ZEUS findings have affected his own clinical practice, Dr. Valgimigli replied, “My stent of choice in patients at high bleeding risk is a second-generation DES. Since there aren’t data showing a specific second-generation DES is preferable, basically whatever I have I implant.”

He sticks to the 30-day DAPT regimen featured in the ZEUS protocol except under specific circumstances, which were allowed under the protocol. One involves staged PCI procedures, in which case the 30 days of DAPT begins after the last stent is implanted, even though the patient has been on DAPT in the interim. The other circumstance where he goes beyond 30 days of DAPT in a patient on a second-generation DES is if an ischemic event occurs down the road: “That patient is put back on DAPT and left there,” he said.

In response to another question, Dr. Valgimigli said he doesn’t believe the lower stent thrombosis rate seen in the Endeavor Sprint group in ZEUS is unique to that stent.

“If you look at any BMS versus DES study, taking the first-generation DES out of the picture, it’s quite clear that the second-generation DES are much safer than a BMS,” according to the cardiologist.

The ZEUS study was sponsored by the University of Ferrara (Italy) and funded by Medtronic. Dr. Valgimigli serves as a consultant to and/or on speakers’ bureaus for Medtronic and more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical and medical devices companies.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

PARIS – The use of a second-generation zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent rather than a bare metal stent in conjunction with 30 days of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients deemed at high bleeding risk results in lower 1-year rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis, according to a prespecified analysis of the ZEUS trial presented at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Asked if the ZEUS results mean it’s time to take bare-metal stents (BMS) out of the cupboard and get rid of them, the study presenter, Dr. Marco Valgimigli, replied “I did so already.”

ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates Study) was an open-label, prospective study in which 1,606 patients undergoing urgent or emergent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to a thin-strut BMS or the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent, a second-generation hydrophilic polymer-based device that, uniquely, elutes 100% of the drug within the first 2 weeks. All participants were placed on an intended 30-day regimen of DAPT. The study was conducted in four European countries, explained Dr. Valgimigli of Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

This prespecified analysis focused on the 828 patients with one or more factors placing them at high bleeding risk, since the use of a drug-eluting stent (DES) with a 30-day DAPT protocol hadn’t been adequately studied in that setting, the cardiologist noted.

High bleeding risk was defined by one or more of the following: age greater than 80, being on oral anticoagulation therapy, a prior bleeding event, need for corticosteroid or NSAID therapy, known anemia, or a bleeding diathesis; 47% of study participants had more than one of these criteria.

The primary study endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, acute MI, or target vessel revascularization through 1 year of follow-up. The rate was 29% in the BMS group, compared with 22.6% in the DES group, for a highly significant 26% relative risk reduction.

The zotarolimus-eluting stent group also fared significantly better in terms of stent thrombosis and the other prespecified secondary endpoints.

Asked how the ZEUS findings have affected his own clinical practice, Dr. Valgimigli replied, “My stent of choice in patients at high bleeding risk is a second-generation DES. Since there aren’t data showing a specific second-generation DES is preferable, basically whatever I have I implant.”

He sticks to the 30-day DAPT regimen featured in the ZEUS protocol except under specific circumstances, which were allowed under the protocol. One involves staged PCI procedures, in which case the 30 days of DAPT begins after the last stent is implanted, even though the patient has been on DAPT in the interim. The other circumstance where he goes beyond 30 days of DAPT in a patient on a second-generation DES is if an ischemic event occurs down the road: “That patient is put back on DAPT and left there,” he said.

In response to another question, Dr. Valgimigli said he doesn’t believe the lower stent thrombosis rate seen in the Endeavor Sprint group in ZEUS is unique to that stent.

“If you look at any BMS versus DES study, taking the first-generation DES out of the picture, it’s quite clear that the second-generation DES are much safer than a BMS,” according to the cardiologist.

The ZEUS study was sponsored by the University of Ferrara (Italy) and funded by Medtronic. Dr. Valgimigli serves as a consultant to and/or on speakers’ bureaus for Medtronic and more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical and medical devices companies.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com