Citations

Due to familiarity, short half-life, ease of monitoring, and the availability of a reversal agent, heparin remains the anticoagulant of choice for cardiac operations requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). However, occasionally patients require CPB but should not receive heparin, most often because of acute or subacute heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). In these cases, if it is not feasible to wait for the disappearance of HIT antibodies, an alternative anticoagulant must be selected. A number of non-heparin anticoagulant options have been explored. However, current recommendations suggest the use of a direct thrombin inhibitor such as bivalirudin. This review describes the use of heparin alternatives for the conduct of CPB with a focus on the direct thrombin inhibitors.

Abstract Purpose: We examined the hypothesis that mutations in mTOR pathway genes are associated with response to rapalogs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Experimental Design: We studied a cohort of mRCC patients who were treated with mTOR inhibitors with distinct clinical outcomes. Tumor DNA from 79 subjects was successfully analyzed for mutations using targeted next-generation sequencing of 560 cancer genes. Responders were defined as those with partial response (PR) by RECIST v1.0 or stable disease with any tumor shrinkage for 6 months or longer. Nonresponders were defined as those with disease progression during the first 3 months of therapy. Fisher exact test assessed the association between mutation status in mTOR pathway genes and treatment response. Results: Mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in responders, 12 (28%) of 43, than nonresponders, 4 (11%) of 36 (P = 0.06). Mutations in TSC1 or TSC2 alone were also more common in responders, 9 (21%), than nonresponders, 2(6%), (P = 0.05). Furthermore, 5 (42%) of 12 subjects with PR had mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 compared with 4 (11%) of 36 nonresponders (P = 0.03). Eight additional non-mTOR pathway genes were found to be mutated in at least 4 of 79 tumors (5%); none were associated positively with response. Conclusions: In this cohort of mRCC patients, mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in patients who experienced clinical benefit from rapalogs than in those who progressed. However, a substantial fraction of responders (24 of 43, 56%) had no mTOR pathway mutation identified. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2445–52. ©2016 AACR. See related commentary by Voss and Hsieh, p. 2320

SummaryBackgroundBardet–Biedl syndrome (BBS) is a rare genetic condition with manifestations that can impact anesthetic and perioperative care. There is a void of literature describing the perioperative anesthetic management in this complex patient population.ObjectivesThe purpose of this retrospective series was to describe the perioperative care of patients diagnosed with BBS at a large academic tertiary referral center with experience in caring for these patients.MethodsAll patients receiving anesthesia during the time between July 10, 1997 and Jan 1, 2015 were identified. Anesthetic and perioperative records were reviewed in detail for demographic, echocardiographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data.ResultsWe identified 12 patients with BBS undergoing 40 anesthetics at our institution. The study identified a high risk for difficult airway with need for advanced airway techniques (67% of patient's ≥18 years of age required either awake fiberoptic or video laryngoscopy techniques), cardiac abnormalities, renal impairment, morbid obesity, and intellectual disability as the main syndrome manifestations of interest to the anesthesiologist. No patient had perioperative complications directly related to BBS; however, each underwent thorough perioperative evaluation with emphasis on the systemic comorbidities associated with the syndrome. This report illustrates that patients with BBS can safely undergo anesthesia, but a detailed and often multidisciplinary preoperative evaluation is prudent.

Purpose: To review outcomes of continuous motor/somatosensory-evoked potential (MEP/SSEP) monitoring, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and selective use of iliofemoral conduits in patients undergoing endovascular repair of descending thoracic aneurysm (DTA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). Methods: The clinical data of 49 patients (mean age 75±8 years; 38 men) who underwent endovascular repair of DTA and TAAAs (2011–2014) were reviewed. All patients had cerebrospinal fluid drainage, permissive hypertension (mean arterial pressure ≥80 mm Hg), and MEP/SSEP monitoring. There were 44 (90%) patients with TAAAs and 5 (10%) with DTA. Types I and II TAAAs were repaired in staged procedures. Iliofemoral conduits were used for small iliac arteries and to minimize time of lower extremity ischemia in patients with difficult anatomy. In patients with changes in MEP/SSEPs, a standardized protocol was employed to optimize spinal cord perfusion and restore lower extremity blood flow. Endpoints were mortality, spinal cord injury (SCI), and lower extremity ischemic complications. Results: Sixteen (33%) patients had staged TAAA repair. A total of 163 visceral arteries were targeted by fenestrations and branches (mean 3.7±1.0 vessels/patient). Temporary iliofemoral conduits were used in 16 limbs/14 patients. A stable MEP/SSEP was achieved in all patients. Thirty-one (63%) patients had a ≥75% decrease in MEP/SSEP amplitude in 50 limbs starting on average 75±28 minutes after obtaining vascular access. MEP/SSEP amplitude improved with maneuvers in 12 (39%) patients and returned to baseline with restoration of lower extremity flow in all except 1 patient who developed immediate SCI. Thirty-day mortality was 4%. Three (6%) patients had SCI, 2 permanent and 1 temporary at 14 days. There were no lower extremity ischemic complications. Conclusion: Neuromonitoring predicted immediate SCI and allowed use of a protocol to optimize spinal cord and lower extremity perfusion during complex endovascular aortic repair. Larger clinical experience is needed to evaluate the efficacy of neuromonitoring to prevent SCI.

Abstract Purpose: Recent studies suggest that SIRT1-activating compounds (STAC) are a promising class of anticancer drugs, although their mechanism of action remains elusive. The main goal of this study is to determine the role of STACs as a potential therapy for pancreatic cancer. In addition, we also explored the mechanism by which these compounds affect pancreatic cancer. Experimental design: Using in vitro (cell culture experiments) and in vivo (xenograft experiments) approaches, we studied the role of SIRT1 agonists (STAC) in human pancreatic cancer cell viability and growth. Results: We show that SIRT1 is highly expressed in pancreatic cancer cells and that the STACs SRT1720, SRT1460, and SRT3025 inhibited cell growth and survival of pancreatic cancer cells. STACs enhanced the sensitivity of pancreatic cells to gemcitabine and paclitaxel, indicating that these drugs could be used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs. We also show that STACs were very effective in inhibiting tumor xenograft growth. In mechanistic studies, we observed that STACs activated a SIRT1 lysosomal–dependent cell death. Furthermore, the effect of STACs on cell viability was also dependent on the expression of the endogenous SIRT1 inhibitor DBC1. Conclusions: Taken together, our results reveal an essential role for SIRT1 and lysosomes in the death pathway regulated by STACs in pancreatic cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2496–507. ©2015 AACR.

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.