Citations

AbstractBicuspid aortic valve is the most prevalent cardiac valvular malformation. It is associated with a high rate of long‐term morbidity including development of calcific aortic valve disease, aortic regurgitation and concomitant thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection. Recently, basic and translational studies have identified some key processes involved in the development of bicuspid aortic valve and its morbidity. The development of aortic valve disease and thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection is the result of complex interactions between genotypes, environmental risk factors and specific haemodynamic conditions created by bicuspid aortic valve anatomy. Herein, we review the pathobiology of bicuspid aortic valve with a special emphasis on translational aspects of these basic findings. Important but unresolved problems in the pathology of bicuspid aortic valve and thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection are discussed, along with the molecular processes involved.

Because Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at the time of liver transplantation (LT) increase nationwide, patients are at an increased risk for delisting by becoming too sick or dying while awaiting transplantation. We quantified the risk and defined the predictors of delisting or death in patients with cirrhosis hospitalized with an infection. North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) is a 15‐center consortium of tertiary‐care hepatology centers that prospectively enroll and collect data on infected patients with cirrhosis. Of the 413 patients evaluated, 136 were listed for LT. The listed patients' median age was 55.18 years, 58% were male, and 47% were hepatitis C virus infected, with a mean MELD score of 2303. At 6‐month follow‐up, 42% (57/136) of patients were delisted/died, 35% (47/136) underwent transplantation, and 24% (32/136) remained listed for transplant. The frequency and types of infection were similar among all 3 groups. MELD scores were highest in those who were delisted/died and were lowest in those remaining listed (25.07, 24.26, 17.59, respectively; P < 0.001). Those who were delisted or died, rather than those who underwent transplantation or were awaiting transplantation, had the highest proportion of 3 or 4 organ failures at hospitalization versus those transplanted or those continuing to await LT (38%, 11%, and 3%, respectively; P = 0.004). For those who were delisted or died, underwent transplantation, or were awaiting transplantation, organ failures were dominated by respiratory (41%, 17%, and 3%, respectively; P < 0.001) and circulatory failures (42%, 16%, and 3%, respectively; P < 0.001). LT‐listed patients with end‐stage liver disease and infection have a 42% risk of delisting/death within a 6‐month period following an admission. The number of organ failures was highly predictive of the risk for delisting/death. Strategies focusing on prevention of infections and extrahepatic organ failure in listed patients with cirrhosis are required. Liver Transpl 21:881‐888, 2015. © 2015 AASLD.

AbstractThe majority of kidney transplant recipients die from cardiovascular events. Physical activity may be a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease following transplant. The goal of our study was to examine adherence to a physical activity intervention following kidney transplant and its impact on metabolic parameters. All patients who received a kidney transplant at our center between 12/2010 and 12/2011 received usual care (n = 162), while patients transplanted between 12/2011 and 1/2013 received a 90‐day pedometer‐based physical activity intervention (n = 145). Metabolic parameters were assessed at four and 12 months post‐transplant. Baseline demographics and clinical management were similar between cohorts. Adherence to the prescription was 36.5%. Patients in the physical activity cohort had lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure four months post‐transplant compared to the usual care cohort (122 ± 18 vs. 126 ± 16 mmHg, p = 0.049 and 73 ± 10 vs. 77 ± 9, p = 0.004) and less impaired fasting glucose (20.7% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.04). Twelve‐month outcomes were not different between cohorts. Over one‐third of our cohort adhered to a pedometer‐based physical activity intervention following kidney transplant, and the intervention was associated with improved metabolic parameters. Further study of post‐transplant exercise interventions and methods to optimize long‐term adherence are needed.

Background and aim Although Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce colorectal adenoma burden in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), the utility of combining chemopreventive agents in FAP is not known. We conducted a randomised trial of celecoxib (CXB) versus CXB+diflouromethylornithine (DFMO) to determine the synergistic effect, if any. Methods The primary endpoint was % change in adenoma count in a defined field. Secondary endpoints were adenoma burden (weighted by adenoma diameter) and video review of entire colon/rectal segments. Adverse event (AEs) were monitored by National Cancer Institution toxicity criteria. Results 112 subjects were randomised: 60 men and 52 women at a mean age of 38 years. For the 89 patients who had landmark-matched polyp counts available at baseline and 6 months, the mean % change in adenoma count over the 6 months of trial was −13.0% for CXB+DFMO and −1.0% for CXB (p=0.69). Mean % change in adenoma burden was −40% (CXB+DFMO) vs −27% (CXB) (p=0.13). Video-based global polyp change was −0.80 for CXB+DFMO vs −0.33 for CXB (p=0.03). Fatigue was the only significant AE, worse on the CXB arm (p=0.02). Conclusions CXB combined with DFMO yielded moderate synergy according to a video-based global assessment. No significant difference in adenoma count, the primary endpoint, was seen between the two study arms. No evidence of DFMO-related ototoxicity was seen. There were no adverse cardiovascular outcomes in either trial arm and no significant increase in AEs in the CXB+DFMO arm of the trial. Differences in outcomes between primary and secondary endpoints may relate to sensitivity of the endpoint measures themselves. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov number N01-CN95040.