Citations

Background The optimal imaging guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex coronary lesions remains a matter of debate. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI versus angiography-guided PCI. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OCT-guided PCI to angiography-guided PCI were included. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated for dichotomous outcomes using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results Eleven RCTs involving 6432 participants were included. OCT-guided PCI showed no statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to angiography-guided PCI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51–1.01, P = 0.06, I 2 = 0%). However, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a significant reduction in cardiac death (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30–0.90, P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89, P = 0.003, I 2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P = 0.01, I 2 = 0%), and major edge dissection (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.65, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%). Upon stratification of studies on the basis of follow-up duration, similar results were noted. Conclusion OCT-guided PCI demonstrated significant benefits in reducing cardiac death, MACE, and procedural complications compared to angiography-guided PCI. These findings support the integration of OCT in complex PCI, although further studies are warranted to assess its impact on long-term mortality.

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) remains the definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease; however, post-LT outcomes may differ depending on underlying disease etiology. Our study aimed to compare post-LT outcomes between alcoholic and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-related liver transplant recipients in the United States. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX Research Network. Adult liver transplant recipients (≥18 years) were categorized into two mutually exclusive cohorts: alcoholic liver disease and NASH-related liver disease. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to balance baseline characteristics. Clinical outcomes were assessed. Comparative analyses included risk ratios, risk differences, odds ratios, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and hazard ratios with log-rank testing. Results: Compared with NASH recipients, alcoholic LT recipients had a significantly higher risk of rejection (14.5% vs. 12.1%; RR 1.195, 95% CI 1.076–1.327; p = 0.001) and hepatic encephalopathy (14.3% vs. 8.3%; RR 1.720, 95% CI 1.526–1.938; p < 0.001). Acute kidney injury was also more frequent in the alcoholic cohort (47.3% vs. 43.6%; RR 1.084, 95% CI 1.036–1.133; p < 0.001). In contrast, sepsis (15.6% vs. 18.0%; RR 0.869, 95% CI 0.794–0.952; p = 0.003) and CKD (46.1% vs. 51.1%; RR 0.901, 95% CI 0.863–0.939; p < 0.001) occurred less frequently in alcoholic LT patients. No significant differences were observed for liver transplant failure or ascites. Kaplan–Meier analyses demonstrated significantly lower rejection-free survival (HR 1.241, p < 0.001), higher hepatic encephalopathy (HR 1.808, p < 0.001), increased AKI risk (HR 1.150, p < 0.001) and higher all-cause mortality in the alcoholic cohort (HR 1.106, p = 0.031). Conclusions: In this large real-world matched cohort study, alcoholic LT recipients demonstrated higher risks of complications and all-cause mortality compared with NASH LT recipients.

Abstract Honoring a patient’s wishes for end-of-life care can be challenging if the patient loses decision-making capacity and the identified alternate decision-maker will not respect the patient’s wishes. This article discusses how to proceed ethically and legally when the alternate decision-maker and care team disagree about respecting a patient’s end-of-life preferences.

Abstract Background: Adhering to 2018 World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) Cancer Prevention Recommendations is reportedly associated with better survival among long-term colon cancer survivors (likely affected by immortal time bias). Thus, it is important to validate survival benefits by assessing adherence shortly after diagnosis, and further investigation is needed to examine its association with chemotherapy outcomes. Methods: Using an NCI-sponsored adjuvant chemotherapy trial conducted in patients with stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702; NCT01150045), we included 1,666 patients who returned valid Willett food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) at chemotherapy initiation and derived WCRF/AICR scores accordingly (higher score suggesting higher adherence). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (time from FFQ completion to recurrence or death), and secondary outcomes were reduced relative dose intensity (RDI; &lt;85% suggesting worse completion) and severe toxicities (grade ≥3 for any chemotherapy-related toxicity). To estimate the associations of WCRF/AICR scores (quartiles) with survival and chemotherapy outcomes, we conducted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression for disease-free survival and multivariable logistic regression for reduced RDI and severe toxicities. Results: Compared to those in the lowest quartile of the WCRF/AICR score, patients in the highest quartile had significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.75 [0.58, 0.98], Ptrend = 0.02) and lower risk of reduced RDI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74 [0.54, 1.00], Ptrend = 0.03), but not for severe toxicities (OR: 1.24 [0.93, 1.67], Ptrend = 0.11). Conclusions: In patients with stage III colon cancer, higher adherence to WCRF/AICR recommendations was associated with better survival and chemotherapy completion, but not for severe toxicities. Funding: https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Citation Format: En Cheng, Chao Ma, Qian Shi, Anthony F. Shields, Peter T. Campbell, Ardaman P. Shergill, Katherine A. Guthrie, Felix Couture, Philip Kuebler, Pankaj Kumar, Benjamin Tan, Smitha S. Krishnamurthi, Kimmie Ng, Eileen M. O'Reilly, Justin C. Brown, Philip A. Philip, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt. Associations of WCRF/AICR recommendations with survival and chemotherapy outcomes in colon cancer: CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 5038.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of death and neurological disability worldwide. The search for biomarkers that indicate TBI severity and prognosis with greater accuracy is ongoing. This study aimed to evaluate the significance of several neuroinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, assessing their potential as biomarkers in pediatric TBI (pTBI). This was an exploratory analysis of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines measured in a subset of 26 children aged 0–18 years with TBI and 21 controls. TBI severity was determined by GCS. The functional outcome was measured via the GOS-E score at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-injury. Serum samples were analyzed for ICAM-1, VCAM-1, SAA, CRP, IFN-g, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-13, IL-1b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-a, TNF-b, eotaxin, eotaxin-3, IP-10, MCP-1, MCP-4, MDC, MIP-1a, MIP-1b and TARC. Levels of IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, IL-16, MDC, and GM-CSF were increased, and IFN-γ, IL-5, IL-8, and eotaxin-3 were decreased at enrollment when compared with controls. Elevated IL-6 and IL-10 at enrollment were associated with severe TBI (AUC of 1, p = 0.0002 and p = <0.0001, respectively). IL-6, IL-10, IL-16, and TNF-β at enrollment and IL-5 at 24 h were elevated in children with unfavorable outcomes, with an AUC > 0.8, suggesting biomarker potential. Our data indicate that several cytokines and chemokines measured after TBI may aid in the assessment of pTBI severity and prognosis. IL-6, IL-10, and IL-16 may show potential as biomarkers for pTBI severity and outcomes.

Background: Chronic right ventricular pacing (RVP) can lead to electrical dyssynchrony, often resulting in pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Although biventricular pacing (BiVP) is a standard upgrade strategy, it is associated with notable rates of non-response and procedural limitations. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), offers a more physiological approach by directly engaging the native conduction system. Emerging evidence supports the role of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in reversing adverse remodeling and improving clinical outcomes in PICM patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through January 2025. Studies were included if they evaluated outcomes in patients with PICM who had been chronically paced in the right ventricle and subsequently upgraded to HPCSP. Key endpoints included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Results: Six studies comprising 144 patients were included. Over an average follow-up of 17.9 ± 10.5 months, significant improvement in LVEF was observed, increasing from 35 ± 8% prior to upgrade to 48 ± 12% following HPCSP (P < 0.001). Similarly, NYHA class improved from a baseline of 2.7 ± 0.8 to 1.9 ± 0.8 (P < 0.001), indicating meaningful symptomatic relief. Conclusion: Upgrading to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing is a safe and effective strategy in patients with PICM. It offers significant improvements in cardiac function and quality of life by restoring physiologic electrical activation. HPCSP represents a promising alternative to BiVP in this population and should be considered in clinical decision-making for pacing upgrades.

Introduction: Dyslipidemia remains a major driver of cardiovascular disease. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that block angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3) lower atherogenic lipids by a mechanism distinct from statins. Earlier evidence centred on the Evinacumab. A new trial now evaluate the investigational antibody SHR-1918. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that treatment with ANGPTL3 mAbs whether evinacumab or SHR-1918 would significantly improve lipid parameters compared to placebo without increasing adverse events. Aims: To Quantify the pooled effect of ANGPTL3 mAbs on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), Triglycerides, apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and Compare efficacy and safety between Evinacumab and SHR-1918 subgroups. Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed, Google Scholar MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov untill 1 April 2025 was done and relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing ANGPTL3 mAbs with placebo in dyslipidaemic patients were included. Data was extracted on spreadsheet and Data analysis was done in RevMan 5.4. Results: 5 RCT's comprising of 603 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed marked reductions in atherogenic lipids with ANGPTL3 monoclonal antibodies versus placebo, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD = –2.73, 95 % CI –4.16 to –1.31, P < 0.001), triglycerides (SMD = –3.54, 95 % CI –4.71 to –2.37, P < 0.001), apolipoprotein B (SMD = –1.98, 95 % CI –2.97 to –1.00, P < 0.001) and non-HDL-C (SMD = –2.89, 95 % CI –4.00 to –1.78, P < 0.001). Sub-group analyses demonstrated directionally consistent lipid lowering for both evinacumab and the newer agent SHR-1918. Adverse-event due to treatment evaluation revealed no significant increase in Adverse events due to treatment (RR = 1.05, 95 % CI 0.87 to 1.27, P = 0.63) or serious events (RR = 1.37, 95 % CI 0.54 to 3.44, P = 0.49), indicating good overall tolerability. Conclusion: monoclonal antibodies targeting ANGPTL3 encompassing both evinacumab and the newer agent SHR-1918 consistently reduced LDL-C, triglycerides, and related lipid markers with a favourable tolerability profile. Further large, long-term studies are needed to fully establish their safety, clinical effectiveness, and potential to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Background: Hypertension is a major contributor to global cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite a wide range of pharmacologic treatments, many patients continue to have uncontrolled blood pressure. Recent research highlights the gut microbiota as a modifiable factor in blood pressure regulation through mechanisms involving systemic inflammation, microbial metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids, and angiotensin-converting enzyme modulation. Probiotic and prebiotic supplementation has gained interest as an adjunct strategy, yet existing reviews are limited in scope and often lack robust subgroup analysis. Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of probiotic and prebiotic supplementation on blood pressure in adults with hypertension or elevated blood pressure, with an emphasis on gut microbiota modulation. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect for articles published from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2025. ClinicalTrials.gov and PROSPERO were also searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in English involving adults 19-44 years with hypertension or pre-hypertension, comparing probiotic or prebiotic interventions with placebo, no treatment, or standard care. The primary outcome were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure; secondary outcomes included gut microbiota composition, inflammatory markers, endothelial function, and adverse effects. Two independent reviewers screened studies and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Results: Of 601 records screened, 23 trials met inclusion criteria. Most studies showed modest reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure with probiotic or prebiotic use. Mechanistic insights included improved gut barrier integrity, reduced inflammation, and increased beneficial metabolites. Subgroup analyses suggested efficacy varied by strain type, dosage, duration, and delivery method. Secondary outcomes showed improvements in lipid profiles, insulin resistance, and abundance of Bifidobacterium. Conclusion: Modulation of gut microbiota shows potential as an adjunct approach in managing hypertension.. While short-term benefits are observed, variability across studies limits generalizability. Larger trials with standardized methods are needed to confirm long-term clinical relevance. Keywords: Hypertension, Blood Pressure, Gut Microbiota, Probiotics, Prebiotics, Randomized Controlled Trials, Systematic Review

ABSTRACT Background Patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) were excluded from all major trials for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). “Suicide left ventricle” occurring after TAVR is postulated to occur as a result of chronic pressure overload from fixed obstruction that is acutely relieved after the valve deployment resulting in worsening left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Aims The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and readmission outcomes in HOCM patients undergoing TAVR. Methods Data was extracted from the National Inpatient and National Readmission 2016−2020 Databases. We performed multivariable Logistic regression analysis to determine the odds of in‐hospital mortality and other relevant clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR with and without comorbid HOCM. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess 30‐day hospital readmission in HOCM patients undergoing TAVR. Results We identified 296,670 patients who underwent TAVR, of whom 534 (0.2%) had comorbid HOCM. The patients undergoing TAVR with comorbid HOCM had more than threefold higher risk of in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 3.47, 95% CI 1.37–8.81, p = 0.009) when compared to patients without HOCM. Additionally, patients undergoing TAVR with comorbid HOCM had a higher risk of atrioventricular blocks, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, and the need for intubation. There was no difference in readmission outcomes post‐TAVR among patients with and without HOCM. Conclusion Our analysis of a large, real‐world cohort of patients undergoing TAVR showed that patients with HOCM have a significantly higher risk of in‐hospital mortality and procedural complications when compared to patients without HOCM.