Citations

Abstract OBJECTIVES Safety, efficacy and durability are important considerations when selecting a bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study assessed 7-year clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis. METHODS Patients indicated for surgical AVR were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized trial, conducted across 39 sites globally. The primary end-point of this analysis was freedom from surgical explant or percutaneous valve-in-valve reintervention due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 7 years of follow-up, determined using Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis. We also evaluated a composite end-point of SVD and/or severe haemodynamic dysfunction requiring reintervention. Survival, valve-related safety events and haemodynamic performance were assessed. Deaths and safety events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS A total of 1132 patients underwent surgical AVR. Mean age was 70 years; 854 patients (75%) were men. The mean STS risk of mortality was 2.0 ± 1.4%, and 659 patients (58%) had a New York Heart Association classification of I/II. One or more concomitant procedures were performed in 577 patients (51%). At 7 years, the Kaplan–Meier rate of freedom from SVD/severe haemodynamic dysfunction requiring reintervention was 1.2% (0.5–2.5%) with no cases adjudicated as SVD. The survival rate was 82.6% (79.5–85.0%). The KM event rate was 5.7% (4.3–7.7%) for reintervention, 6.3% (4.9–8.3%) for endocarditis and 0.4% (0.1–1.1%) for valve thrombosis. Mean aortic gradient, dimensionless velocity index and effective orifice area were 13.8 ± 5.9 mmHg, 0.42 ± 0.09 and 1.99 ± 0.53 cm2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This analysis demonstrated excellent durability of the Avalus valve with good clinical outcomes and stable haemodynamic performance through 7 years of follow-up.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Abstract Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Background— Calcific aortic stenosis is the third most common cardiovascular disease in the United States. We hypothesized that the mechanism for aortic valve calcification is similar to skeletal bone formation and that this process is mediated by an osteoblast-like phenotype. Methods and Results— To test this hypothesis, we examined calcified human aortic valves replaced at surgery (n=22) and normal human valves (n=20) removed at time of cardiac transplantation. Contact microradiography and micro-computerized tomography were used to assess the 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional extent of mineralization. Mineralization borders were identified with von Kossa and Goldner’s stains. Electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy were performed for identification of bone ultrastructure and CaPO 4 composition. To analyze for the osteoblast and bone markers, reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction was performed on calcified versus normal human valves for osteopontin, bone sialoprotein, osteocalcin, alkaline phosphatase, and the osteoblast-specific transcription factor Cbfa1. Microradiography and micro-computerized tomography confirmed the presence of calcification in the valve. Special stains for hydroxyapatite and CaPO 4 were positive in calcification margins. Electron microscopy identified mineralization, whereas energy-dispersive spectroscopy confirmed the presence of elemental CaPO 4 . Reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction revealed increased mRNA levels of osteopontin, bone sialoprotein, osteocalcin, and Cbfa1 in the calcified valves. There was no change in alkaline phosphatase mRNA level but an increase in the protein expression in the diseased valves. Conclusions— These findings support the concept that aortic valve calcification is not a random degenerative process but an active regulated process associated with an osteoblast-like phenotype.