Factors associated with the internal jugular venous approach for Melody™ Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation is usually performed from a femoral venous - transfemoral - approach, but this may not be the optimal vascular access option in some patients. This study aimed to determine which group of patients might benefit from an internal jugular - transjugular - approach for transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective study included all patients who underwent attempted transcatheter pulmonary valve placement in the right ventricular outflow tract between April 2010 and June 2012 at two large congenital heart centres. Patients were divided into two groups based on venous access site - transfemoral or transjugular. Patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 81 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (median age 16.4 years), the transjugular approach was used in 14 patients (17%). The transjugular group was younger (median age 11.9 versus 17.3 years), had lower body surface area (mean 1.33 versus 1.61 m2), more often had moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation (29% versus 7%), and had a higher ratio of right ventricle-to-systemic systolic pressure (mean 82.4 versus 64.7). Patients requiring a transjugular approach after an unsuccessful transfemoral approach had longer fluoroscopic times and procedure duration. CONCLUSIONS: The transjugular approach for transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation is used infrequently but is more often used in younger and smaller patients. Technical limitations from a transfemoral approach may be anticipated if there is moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation or higher right ventricular pressures. In these patients, a transjugular approach should be considered early.

Hybrid approach for pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum: early single center results and comparison to the standard surgical approach.

OBJECTIVES: To examine acute and mid-term patient outcomes following the hybrid approach to pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum (PA-IVS) compared with the standard surgical approach. BACKGROUND: A subset of PA-IVS patients with the prospect of biventricular circulation typically undergo surgical or transcatheter right ventricular (RV) outflow tract opening. A recently described hybrid procedure, involving perventricular pulmonary valve perforation, was shown to be safe and effective in single-center series. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of all patient with PA-IVS who underwent either surgical or hybrid RV decompression between January 2002 and December 2011 was completed and acute and mid-term patient outcomes were compared between the surgical and hybrid cohorts. Additionally, a systematic literature review was completed to compare a transcatheter cohort to the hybrid cohort. RESULTS: Seven patients with PA-IVS underwent a hybrid procedure; the procedure was technically successful in all attempts, and none required CPB. No patients required surgical re-intervention prior to hospital discharge, and none died during the study period. Surgical RV decompression was performed in 17 patients with a median CPB time of 80 min. Patient outcomes were nearly identical between cohorts. By systematic review, the transcatheter approach has a procedural success of 75-95% but up to 75% of patients require operation in the neonatal period. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid approach is a safe and feasible alternative to the standard surgical and transcatheter approaches to PA-IVS. Acute and mid-term patient outcomes are comparable with those treated with a standard surgical approach and neonatal CPB is completely avoided.

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.

Geriatric risk factors for serious COVID-19 outcomes among older adults with cancer: a cohort study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer. METHODS: In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients. INTERPRETATION: The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Prognostic Significance of Pancreatic Metastases in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Systemic Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic metastases (PM) are rare in renal cell carcinoma. It has been suggested that patients with metastases to the pancreas have a more favorable prognosis, but little is known about the long-term outcomes with systemic therapy. We sought to understand the outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with PM treated with systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 4736 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated on phase II/III clinical trials. Systemic therapies included anti-vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy, mammalian target of rapamycin-targeted therapy, and cytokine therapy. RESULTS: The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with versus without PM. Statistical analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Among 4736 patients, 235 (5.0%) were identified to have baseline PM at therapy initiation. The median OS in patients with PM was significantly prolonged with OS of 41.7 months versus 19.0 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly prolonged in patients with PM (10.9 vs. 6.9 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .004). The effect of PM on OS and progression-free survival was independent of other sites of metastasis or International mRCC Database Consortium risk group. CONCLUSION: The presence of PM in RCC is an independent positive predictor for survival and improved response to systemic therapy. These findings suggest RCC with PM is associated with favorable outcomes and further work to understand the underlying disease biology of these patients is warranted.