ENDOLUMINAL RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION WITH STENTING VS STENTING ONLY IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT BILIARY OBSTRUCTION: A META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMISED TRIALS.

INTRODUCTION: Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a palliative treatment for patients suffering from malignant biliary obstruction. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of RFA on stent patency, patient survival, and adverse events. METHODS: Major databases were searched through November 2023 for patients who underwent stenting with or without RFA for extra-hepatic malignant biliary obstruction. A random effects model was employed for analysis and results conveyed using relative risk ratio with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Nine RCTs involving 750 subjects (n=374 RFA plus stent vs. n=376 stent only) with malignant biliary obstruction were included. Meta-analysis revealed similar risks of stent patency at 3 months (RR = 1.01; 95% CI [0.92 - 1.11], I2=4% for RFA plus stenting vs. stent only). Meta-analysis showed improved survival at 6 months (RR = 0.84; 95% CI [0.73 - 0.96], I2=21%, P=0.01 for RFA plus stenting vs. stent only). Subgroup analysis comparing plastic vs uncovered metal stents showed that stent patency was unaffected at 3 months (RR = 1.06; 95% CI [0.91 - 1.23]; I2=17%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with cholangiocarcinoma experienced an overall survival benefit with RFA plus stenting vs. stent only (P<0.001), however, stent patency remained unaffected (P=0.08). An increased incidence of cholecystitis was noted with RFA plus stent vs. stent only (5.1%; 95% CI [3.1% - 7.8%] vs 0.3%; 95% CI [0.01% - 1.5%], respectively). CONCLUSION: Combining endoluminal RFA and stenting may improve overall survival in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. RFA did not impact stent patency significantly.

High geographic prevalence of pulmonary artery hypertension: associations with ethnicity, drug use, and altitude.

While estimates of pulmonary arterial hypertension incidence and prevalence commonly range from 1-3/million and 15-25/million, respectively, clinical experience at our institution suggested much higher rates. We sought to describe the disease burden of pulmonary arterial hypertension in the geographic area served by our Pulmonary Hypertension Clinic and compare it to the REVEAL registry. Our secondary objectives were to document pulmonary arterial hypertension prevalence in minorities underrepresented in REVEAL (Hispanics and Native Americans) and to address the association of pulmonary arterial hypertension with exposure to drugs and moderately increased residential altitude in this population. Retrospective review of pulmonary arterial hypertension clinic patients alive during 2016 identified 154 patients. Hispanic patients made up 35.7% of the cohort, a much greater percentage than REVEAL, p < .001 but smaller than the percentage of Hispanic patients (48.4%) in geographic area served by the clinic. Pulmonary arterial hypertension due to drug exposure was more common and idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension was less common than in REVEAL (p < .001). Overall, pulmonary arterial hypertension incidence was 14 cases per million, greater than the REVEAL registry, odds ratio 6.3 (95% CI: 4.2-9.5), (p < .001). Annual period prevalence of pulmonary arterial hypertension was 93 cases per million, also greater than the REVEAL, odds ratio = 7.5 (95% CI: 6.4-8.8) and remained greater when the clinic cohort was constrained to patients with hemodynamic severity comparable to REVEAL, odds ratio = 3.8 (95% CI: 3.0-4.6), (p < .001). There was a strong association between pulmonary arterial hypertension prevalence and residence at altitude > 4000 ft, odds ratio = 26.6 (95% CI: 8.5-83.5), p < .001; however, this was potentially confounded by pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment referral patterns. These findings document a much higher local pulmonary arterial hypertension incidence and prevalence than previously reported in REVEAL. While population ethnicity differed markedly from REVEAL, the disease burden was not driven by these differences. The possible association of moderately increased residential altitude with pulmonary arterial hypertension warrants further evaluation.

Are diabetes guidelines truly evidence based?

The global epidemic of obesity and diabetes underscores the urgency to develop strategies to prevent cardiovascular (CV) disease in this vulnerable population. Clinical guidelines are intended to help the clinician manage these patients, but guidelines are often discordant among professional organizations and not always evidence based. Clinicians must rely upon the best available evidence, and therefore we critically reviewed the evidence behind the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2016 guidelines on the prevention of CV disease in diabetes. We believe the most robust evidence comes from randomized controlled trials specifically designed for diabetes with hard clinical endpoints such as mortality and CV events. Our analysis supports the ADA recommendations regarding a Mediterranean diet, glycemic control, and BP control, but we believe the evidence to support aspirin and statin therapy in diabetes is inconclusive. This discordance may be multi-factorial including the exclusion of some relevant studies and an over-reliance upon subgroup and meta-analysis. Given the lack of mortality benefit and inconsistent clinical benefits of aspirin and statins, it is essential that clinicians individualize treatment decisions while carefully weighing the risks and harms of any intervention.