Association between duration of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist use and cardiovascular risks: A population-based competing-risk analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although androgen deprivation therapy has known cardiovascular risks, it is unclear if its duration is related to cardiovascular risks. This study thus aimed to investigate the associations between gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist use duration and cardiovascular risks. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with prostate cancer receiving GnRH agonists in Hong Kong during 1999-2021. Patients who switched to GnRH antagonists, underwent bilateral orchidectomy, had <6 months of GnRH agonist, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or prior stroke was excluded. All patients were followed up until September 2021 for a composite endpoint of MI and stroke. Multivariable competing-risk regression using the Fine-Gray subdistribution model was used, with mortality from any cause as the competing event. RESULTS: In total, 4038 patients were analyzed (median age 74.9 years old, interquartile range (IQR) 68.7-80.8 years old). Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years (IQR 2.1-7.5 years), longer GnRH agonists use was associated with higher risk of the endpoint (sub-hazard ratio per year 1.04 [1.01-1.06], p = 0.001), with those using GnRH agonists for ≥2 years having an estimated 23% increase in the sub-hazard of the endpoint (sub-hazard ratio 1.23 [1.04-1.46], p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Longer GnRH agonist use may be associated with greater cardiovascular risks.

Effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review of clinical and preclinical studies.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a critical problem with an impact on both oncological and cardiovascular prognosis, especially when it prevents patients from receiving cancer treatment. However, there are very limited data on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in the prevention and treatment of cardiotoxicity. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the potential benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with CTRCD. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The databases included MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus and Cochrane Central up to January 20, 2022. All pre-clinical and clinical studies including observational studies (cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional and case reports) that used sacubitril/valsartan for prevention or treatment of CTRCD. The primary effectiveness endpoints was CTRCD, defined as a clinically significant change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at the end of the follow-up. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: And after applying the eligibility criteria, 12 articles (9 in humans and 3 preclinical studies) were included in this systematic review. The 3 preclinical studies demonstrated beneficial effects in preventing, attenuating and/or delaying the onset of myocardial damage at the cellular level, ventricular dysfunction and remodeling. Regardind human studies, most of them were composed of case reports. The largest study consisted of a retrospective multicentric cohort with 64 patients. CONCLUSIONS: All clinical studies have demonstrated that used Sac/Val in human showed a significant increase in LVEF, and when reported, a reduction in left ventricular volume and NT-proBNP (or BNP). Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair. Databases were evaluated to July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The primary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, and 30-day mortality rates; secondary outcomes were requirement for reintervention and 1-year and five-year mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 1968 patients were analyzed in 21 articles. TEVAR was performed in 29% (n = 578) and open repair in 71% (n = 1390). TEVAR and open repair did not differ in the mean age of patients (42.1 ± 14 years vs 44.1 ± 14 years; P = .48). There was no difference in duration of intensive care and total hospital stay between TEVAR and open repair groups (12.7 ± 11.1 days vs 12.6 ± 8 days [P = .35] and 27.5 ± 14.6 days vs 25.9 ± 11 days [P = .80], respectively). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in postoperative paraplegia or stroke rate was noted between TEVAR and open repair (1.4% vs 2.3% [OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.70; P = .54] and 1% vs 0.5% [OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.18-2.18; P = .46]). Lower 30-day and 1-year mortality was noted in TEVAR (7.9% vs 20% [OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.92-4.49; P < .00001] and 8.7% vs 17% [OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.99-4.52; P = .05]). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (23% vs 17%; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.20; P = .33). However, there was a higher rate of reintervention at 1 year in the endovascular group (0% vs 6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.96; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR carries lower in-hospital mortality and provides satisfactory perioperative outcomes compared with open repair in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. It also provides a favorable 1-year survival at the expense of higher reintervention rates.

Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Root Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mini-sternotomy has been proven superior to full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement by providing better perioperative outcomes. We investigated whether such technique provides better outcomes in patients undergoing aortic root surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and EMBASE) to identify all published studies up to June 2018. The search terms used related to mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy, aortic root, valve sparing, Bentall procedure. Only articles that compared mini against full sternotomy were considered in this analysis. After excluding articles based on title or abstract, the full text articles selected had reference lists searched for any potential further articles to be included in this review. RESULTS: A total of 2,765 patients were analysed from across eight comparative studies that were included in the quantitative analysis of the parameters of interest that fulfilled the criteria for meta-analysis. Mini-sternotomy aortic root replacement was associated with significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (p=0.009), lower rate of blood transfusion (p=0.01). additionally, they had lower operative mortality (p=0.02), and shorter stay at intensive care and at hospital (p=0.0009, p=0.03 respectively). However, there was no difference between mini-sternotomy and conventional aortic root replacement in terms of aortic cross-clamp time (p=0.28), total operation time (p=0.31), re-exploration rate for bleeding (p=0.28), stroke rate (p=0.90), wound infection rate (p=0.96), and length of mechanical ventilation (p=0.10). CONCLUSION: Mini-sternotomy is a safe, feasible alternative option to full sternotomy in aortic root repair. However, the significant heterogeneity in data points to the need for a larger, well-designed trial to support the currently limited literature evidences.