Citations

SummaryThere is a remarkable dearth of information about the various therapies used, often widely so, to control refractory or super‐refractory status epilepticus despite its high mortality and morbidity. As pointed out by recent literature reviews, there are no controlled studies, and information is based almost entirely on open, often small and retrospective, case series or case reports. Randomized or controlled studies that are sufficiently powered are not feasible in relation to the many therapies and treatment approaches available. For this reason, we proposed an international case registry of therapies used in refractory and super‐refractory cases and their outcome. Clinicians from different countries will be asked to complete an online questionnaire when they treat a patient with refractory or super‐refractory status epilepticus. Information gathered from this database will summarize the spectrum of etiologies, treatments, and outcomes of this challenging condition and may even form the bases for treatment guidelines or future targeted treatment trials.

SummaryAfter seizures have been controlled, long‐term care of status epilepticus may be needed and collectively involves every major organ. First, as a result of rapid escalation of antiepileptic drugs, there are initial concerns with hypotension, acid‐base abnormalities, and cardiac arrhythmias. Second, refractory status epilepticus and the continuous need for intravenous administration of anesthetic drugs will lead to a multitude of systemic complications that require long‐term complex care. Most anticipated problems are infectious complications with a high risk of pneumonia and sepsis, but thromboembolism due to immobilization and catheter placement are also common. If a good outcome is possible or anticipated in a patient with refractory status epilepticus, physicians should plan for a surveillance and treatment protocol to adequately support these patients.

AbstractBackgroundBortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor used to treat multiple myeloma, has been administered (± plasma exchange ± intravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg]) in attempts to reduce antibodies against human leukocyte antigens (HLA) in sensitized patients undergoing organ transplantation. To our knowledge, bortezomib has not been investigated for its effect on natural anti‐pig antibodies. If bortezomib could reduce the production of anti‐pig antibodies, this would likely be beneficial to the outcome of pig organ grafts in primates.MethodsNine patients received bortezomib either to reduce anti‐HLA antibody levels before organ allotransplantation or to treat antibody‐mediated rejection. Patients at the Mayo Clinic (Group 1; n = 4) received bortezomib alone, whereas at the UPMC (Group 2; n = 5), this was combined with plasmaphereses ± IVIg in some cases. Anti‐pig IgM and IgG levels against wild‐type (WT) and α1,3‐galactosyltransferase gene knockout (GTKO) pig aortic endothelial cells (flow cytometry—relative mean fluorescence intensity) and anti‐Gal IgM and IgG (ELISA–OD480 nm) were measured pre‐ and post‐bortezomib therapy.ResultsMean anti‐pig IgM levels were 11.2 (WT) and 1.9 (GTKO) pre‐bortezomib treatment and 9.4 (WT: P = 0.02) and 1.7 (GTKO: P = 0.33) post‐bortezomib treatment, respectively. Mean anti‐pig IgG levels were 4.3 (WT) and 1.5 (GTKO) pre‐bortezomib treatment and 3.6 (WT: P = 0.21) and 1.4 (GTKO: P = 0.20) post‐bortezomib treatment, respectively. Mean anti‐Gal IgM and IgG levels were 0.7 and 1.1, respectively, pre‐treatment, and 0.6 (P = 0.03) and 1.1 (NS), respectively, post‐treatment. When the data were analyzed in Groups 1 and 2 separately, there were no significant differences between the pre‐ and post‐bortezomib levels of anti‐pig, anti‐non‐Gal, or anti‐Gal IgM or IgG.ConclusionsFrom this limited study, we conclude that bortezomib might reduce anti‐Gal IgM levels in primates, but, in this respect alone, is unlikely to have any significant effect on the outcome of GTKO pig organ transplantation.

BackgroundMost patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have concomitant cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, clinical presentation and outcome of CIED infection in the setting of LVAD has not been previously described.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 247 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at Mayo Clinic campuses in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida, from January 2005 to December 2011. Demographic and clinical data of patients who met criteria for CIED infection were extracted.ResultsOf 247 patients with LVADs, 215 (87%) had CIED at the time of LVAD implantation and six (2.8%) subsequently developed CIED infections. Three patients developed CIED lead‐related endocarditis and the other three had pocket infection. All three instances of CIED pocket infection were preceded by device generator exchange, whereas all three patients with CIED lead‐related endocarditis had prior LVAD‐related infections. Causative pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginos (1), coagulase‐negative staphylococci (2), methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (1), a gram‐positive bacillus (1), and culture negative (2). All patients underwent complete CIED removal along with antimicrobial therapy. The three patients with CIED lead‐related endocarditis and prior LVAD infections received chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy, and one patient had LVAD exchange. All but one remained alive at the last follow‐up with a median duration of 15 months (7–46 months) from the time of CIED infection.ConclusionPatients who are receiving LVAD therapy and develop CIED infection should be managed with complete CIED removal. Chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy is warranted in cases that have concomitant LVAD infection.

Chromosomal translocations leading to expression of abnormal fusion proteins play a major role in the pathogenesis of various hematologic malignancies. The recent development of high‐throughput, “deep” sequencing has allowed discovery of novel translocations leading to a rapid increase in understanding these diseases. Translocations involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to ALK fusion proteins originally were discovered in anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs). Among ALCLs, NPM1‐ALK fusions are most common and lead to nuclear localization of the fusion protein. Here, we present a 50‐year‐old male with ALCL demonstrating cytoplasmic ALK immunoreactivity only, suggesting the presence of a non‐NPM1 fusion partner. We performed deep RNA sequencing of tumor tissue from this patient and identified a novel transcript fusing Exon 6 of TRAF1 to Exon 20 of ALK. The TRAF1‐ALK fusion transcript was confirmed at the mRNA level by Sanger sequencing and the fusion protein was visualized by Western blot. The discovery of this TRAF1‐ALK fusion expands the diversity of known ALK fusion partners and highlights the power of deep sequencing for fusion transcript discovery. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.