Citations

Introduction: Acceleration time (AT) and Doppler Velocity Index (DVI) are critical parameters in assessment of bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction (BAVD). AT>100ms and DVI < 0.25 are highly suggestive of prosthetic obstruction and are incorporated in all triage algorithms. Little is known about their relationship with flow. Hypothesis: AT and DVI may be affected by transprosthetic flow in patients with significant bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction (BAVD). Methods: Single center, retrospective analysis of patients with severe BAVD (confirmed at surgical re-replacement, transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation, or successfully treated bioprosthetic valve thrombosis). Standard prosthetic parameters (AT, DVI, effective orifice area (EOA), mean gradient, presence and degree of regurgitation), flow (stroke volume index, Svi; transprosthetic flow rate, FR) were measured on the transthoracic echocardiogram at the time of diagnosis with severe BAVD. Results: A total of 266 patients with severe BAVD underwent treatment between 2008-2020. BAVD mechanism was obstruction (N=192, 72%), regurgitation (n=48, 18%) mixed stenosis and regurgitation (n=15, 6%) and patient-prosthetic mismatch (n=12, 5%). DVI was moderately correlated with FR (r=0.50, p<0.001); AT had a weak but significant inverse correlation with FR (r=0.24, p<0.001). SVi had a weaker influence on DVI (r=0.35, p<0.001) and no correlation with AT. Conclusions: AT and DVI are influenced by transprosthetic flow rate. This flow-dependency should be considered when assessing the mechanism of BAVD.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort analysis. Objective: To determine whether the C2 exposure technique was a predictor of change in cervical alignment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for degenerative indications. Background: In PCDF handling of the C2 posterior paraspinal musculature during the operative approach varies by surgeon technique. To date, no studies have investigated whether maintenance of the upper cervical semispinalis cervicis attachments as compared with complete reflection of upper cervical paraspinal musculature from the posterior bony elements is associated with superior radiographic and clinical outcomes after PCDF. Patients and Methods: All adult patients who underwent C2–T2 PCDF for myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy at multi-institutional academic centers between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were dichotomized by the C2 exposure technique into semispinalis preservation or midline muscular reflection groups. Preoperative and short and long-term postoperative radiographic outcomes (upper cervical alignment, global alignment, and fusion status) and PROMs (Visual Analog Scale–Neck, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form-12) were collected. Univariate analysis compared patient factors, radiographic measures, and PROMs across C2 exposure groups. Results: A total of 129 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (73 muscle preservation and 56 muscle reflection). Patients in the muscular preservation group were on average younger (P = 0.005) and more likely to have bone morphogenic protein (P < 0.001) and C2 pars screws (P = 0.006) used during surgery. Preoperative to postoperative changes in C2 slope, C2 tilt, C2–C3 segmental lordosis, C2–C3 listhesis, C0–C2 Cobb angle, proximal junctional kyphosis, ADI, C1 lamina-occiput distance, C2 sagittal vertical axis, C2–C7 lordosis, and PROMs at all follow-up intervals did not vary significantly by C2 exposure technique. Likewise, there were no significant differences in fusion status, C2–C3 pseudoarthrosis, C2 screw loosening, and complication and revision rates between C2 exposure groups. Conclusions: Preservation of C2 semispinalis attachments versus muscular reflection did not significantly impact cervical alignment, clinical outcomes, or proximal junction complications in long-segment PCDF. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Importance Although the results of A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure (REDUCE LAP-HF II) trial were neutral overall, atrial shunt therapy demonstrated potential efficacy in responders (no latent pulmonary vascular disease and no cardiac rhythm management device). Post hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of shunt vs sham stratified by responder status. Objective To evaluate the effect of atrial shunt vs sham control on cardiac structure/function in the overall study and stratified by responder status. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a sham-controlled randomized clinical trial of an atrial shunt device in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)/HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Trial participants with evaluable echocardiography scans were recruited from 89 international medical centers. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to January 2024. Interventions Atrial shunt device or sham control. Main Outcome Measures Changes in echocardiographic measures from baseline to 1, 6, 12, and 24 months after index procedure. Results The modified intention-to-treat analysis of the REDUCE LAP-HF II trial included 621 randomized patients (median [IQR] age, 72.0 [66.0-77.0] years; 382 female [61.5%]; shunt arm, 309 [49.8%]; sham control arm, 312 [50.2%]). Through 24 months, 212 of 217 patients (98%) in the shunt arm with evaluable echocardiograms had patent shunts. In the overall trial population, the shunt reduced left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (mean difference, −5.65 mL; P &amp;lt;.001), left atrial (LA) minimal volume (mean difference, −2.8 mL; P =.01), and improved LV systolic tissue Doppler velocity (mean difference, 0.69 cm/s; P &amp;lt;.001) and LA emptying fraction (mean difference, 1.88 percentage units; P =.02) compared with sham. Shunt treatment also increased right ventricular (RV; mean difference, 9.58 mL; P &amp;lt;.001) and right atrial (RA; mean difference, 9.71 mL; P &amp;lt;.001) volumes but had no effect on RV systolic function, pulmonary artery pressure, or RA pressure compared with sham. In the shunt arm, responders had smaller increases in RV end-diastolic volume (mean difference, 5.71 mL vs 15.18 mL; interaction P =.01), RV end-systolic volume (mean difference, 1.58 mL vs 7.89 mL; interaction P =.002), and RV/LV ratio (mean difference, 0.07 vs 0.20; interaction P &amp;lt;.001) and larger increases in transmitral A wave velocity (mean difference, 5.08 cm/s vs −1.97 cm/s; interaction P =.02) compared with nonresponders randomized to the shunt, suggesting greater ability to accommodate shunted blood through the pulmonary circulation enabling LA unloading. Conclusions and Relevance In this post hoc analysis of the REDUCE LAP-HF II trial, over 2 years of follow-up, atrial shunting led to reverse remodeling of left-sided chambers and increases in volume of right-sided chambers consistent with the shunt flow but no change in RV systolic function compared with sham. Changes in cardiac structure/function were more favorable in responders compared with nonresponders treated with the shunt, supporting the previously identified responder group hypothesis and mechanism, although further evaluation with longer follow-up is needed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03088033

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) are essentially different manifestations of the same disease that are similarly managed. A number of molecular and cytogenetic variables with prognostic implications have been identified. Undetectable minimal residual disease at the end of treatment with chemoimmunotherapy or venetoclax-based combination regimens is an independent predictor of improved survival among patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. The selection of treatment is based on the disease stage, presence or absence of del(17p) or TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region mutation status, patient age, performance status, comorbid conditions, and the agent’s toxicity profile. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CLL/SLL.