Choosing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in porcelain aorta: outcomes versus surgical replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Porcelain aorta complicates aortic valve replacement and is an indication for transcatheter approaches. No study has compared surgical and transcatheter valve replacement in the setting of porcelain aorta. We characterize porcelain aorta patients undergoing aortic valve replacement and the association of aortic calcification and outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with porcelain aorta were identified. Aortic calcium volume was determined using 3D computed tomography thresholding techniques. Propensity scoring was performed to assess the effect of surgical versus transcatheter approaches. Risk factors for composite major hospital complications (death, stroke and dialysis) were identified using random forest machine learning. RESULTS: From January 2006 to January 2015, 164 patients with porcelain aorta underwent aortic valve replacement [105 (64%) surgical replacement, 59 (36%) transcatheter replacement]. Propensity scoring matched 29 pairs (49% of transcatheter patients). Before matching, 5-year survival was 41% [(43% surgical, 35% transcatheter, P(log-rank) = 0.9]. After matching, mortality for surgical versus transcatheter replacement was 3.4% (n = 1) vs 10% (n = 3), stroke 14% (n = 4) vs 3.4% (n = 1) and dialysis 6.9% (n = 2) versus 11% (n = 3). Matched 5-year survival was 40% after surgical replacement and 29% after transcatheter replacement [P(log-rank) = 0.4]. Total aortic calcium volume was greater in transcatheter than surgical patients [18 (8.0) vs 17 (7.7) ml] and was associated with more major hospital complications after either approach. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical and transcatheter approaches are complementary options for aortic stenosis with porcelain aorta. Surgical valve replacement remains an effective treatment for patients requiring concomitant procedures. Quantifying aortic calcium volume is a helpful risk predictor in all patients with porcelain aorta.

Inspiratory muscle training does not improve clinical outcomes in 3-week COPD rehabilitation: results from a randomised controlled trial.

The value of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. The RIMTCORE (Routine Inspiratory Muscle Training within COPD Rehabilitation) randomised controlled trial examined the effectiveness of IMT added to pulmonary rehabilitation.In total, 611 COPD patients (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage II-IV) received a 3-week inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, of which 602 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. The intervention group (n=300) received highly intensive IMT and the control group (n=302) received sham IMT. The primary outcome was maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax). The secondary outcomes were 6-min walk distance, dyspnoea, quality of life and lung function. Outcomes were assessed pre- and post-pulmonary rehabilitation. ANCOVA was used.The intervention group showed higher effects in PImax (p<0.001) and forced inspiratory volume in 1 s (p=0.013). All other outcomes in both study groups improved significantly, but without further between-group differences. Sex and pulmonary rehabilitation admission shortly after hospitalisation modified quality of life effects.IMT as an add-on to a 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation improves inspiratory muscle strength, but does not provide additional benefits in terms of exercise capacity, quality of life or dyspnoea. A general recommendation for COPD patients to add IMT to a 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation cannot be made.

Comparative efficacy of cetirizine and fexofenadine for seasonal allergic rhinitis, 5-12 hours postdose, in the environmental exposure unit.

In a previous study, cetirizine and fexofenadine similarly relieved seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in the first 5 hours, but cetirizine was more effective at 21-24 hours postdose. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the response to treatment between 5 and 12 hours. Eligible ragweed allergic subjects were exposed to pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit and randomized (n = 599) to a single dose of cetirizine, 10 mg; fexofenadine, 180 mg; or placebo (2.5:2.5:1). The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score at 12 hours postdose. TSSC score was the sum of self-rated scores (0 = absent to 3 = severe) for runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose/palate/throat, and itchy/watery eyes, recorded half-hourly. Mean baseline TSSC scores were similar: 9.2, cetirizine and fexofenadine; 8.9, placebo. Reductions in TSSC scores from baseline were 4.3 at 12 hours and 5.0 overall (i.e., average over 5-12 hours postdose) for cetirizine and 3.4 and 4.4, respectively, for fexofenadine. Cetirizine produced a 26% greater reduction in TSSC at 12 hours (p = 0.001) and 14% greater reduction in TSSC overall (p = 0.006) compared with fexofenadine. Cetirizine and fexofenadine reduced TSSC scores (p < 0.001) and individual symptoms (p < 0.05) more than placebo. However, cetirizine was more effective than fexofenadine (p < 0.05) for runny nose and sneezing (12 hours and overall), itchy/watery eyes (12 hours), and itchy nose/throat/palate (overall). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and somnolence were similar among groups: cetirizine, 25.3 and 0.8%, respectively; fexofenadine, 29.6 and 0%, respectively; placebo, 35.0 and 0%, respectively. In conclusion, cetirizine produced greater relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms than fexofenadine at 12 hours postdose and over the 5- to 12-hour postdose period.

Randomized double-blind comparison of cetirizine and fexofenadine after pollen challenge in the Environmental Exposure Unit: duration of effect in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

There is published evidence that cetirizine has a longer duration of effect than fexofenadine. This study compared duration of effect and other measures of efficacy of cetirizine, 10 mg; fexofenadine, 180 mg; and placebo in allergic subjects exposed to pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit. Eligible subjects (n = 575) were exposed to ragweed pollen (day 1, 7 hours; day 2, 5 hours) and randomized in double-blind fashion to once-daily cetirizine, 10 mg; fexofenadine, 180 mg; or placebo. The total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score, the primary efficacy variable, was based on four rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms rated at 20-minute intervals. Treatment evaluation was divided into three periods: period 1 TSSC, average of 15 scores obtained 0-5 hours after the first dose; period 2 TSSC, average of 9 scores obtained 21-24 hours after the first dose; and period 3 TSSC, average of 6 scores obtained 0-2 hours after the second dose. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline TSSC at period 2. Baseline TSSC was the final pretreatment score on day 1 and was 9.7 for cetirizine, 9.8 for fexofenadine, and 9.7 for placebo. For the primary efficacy end point, the reduction in baseline TSSC at period 2 was greater for cetirizine (-3.6) compared with fexofenadine (-2.7; p < 0.001) and placebo (-2.0; p < 0.001), representing a 33% greater reduction for cetirizine versus fexofenadine. Cetirizine continued to reduce TSSC more than fexofenadine (-5.2 versus -4.6; p = 0.017) and placebo (-3.9; p < 0.001) (period 3). Similar efficacy was observed in period 1 for both active treatments. Treatment-related adverse events were similar in all groups with an incidence of somnolence of 1.3% for both active medications. In conclusion, cetirizine produced a 33% greater reduction in SAR symptoms over the 21- to 24-hour interval after the first dose and for 40 minutes after the second dose, indicating a superior and longer duration of effect, which is relevant because both are once-daily medications. Onset of action was comparable and both treatments were safe and well tolerated.