A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based renal-artery denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. METHODS: We designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Patients with severe resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo renal denervation or a sham procedure. Before randomization, patients were receiving a stable antihypertensive regimen involving maximally tolerated doses of at least three drugs, including a diuretic. The primary efficacy end point was the change in office systolic blood pressure at 6 months; a secondary efficacy end point was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, end-stage renal disease, embolic events resulting in end-organ damage, renovascular complications, or hypertensive crisis at 1 month or new renal-artery stenosis of more than 70% at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 535 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months was -14.13±23.93 mm Hg in the denervation group as compared with -11.74±25.94 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group (P<0.001 for both comparisons of the change from baseline), for a difference of -2.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.89 to 2.12; P=0.26 for superiority with a margin of 5 mm Hg). The change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -6.75±15.11 mm Hg in the denervation group and -4.79±17.25 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group, for a difference of -1.96 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.97 to 1.06; P=0.98 for superiority with a margin of 2 mm Hg). There were no significant differences in safety between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This blinded trial did not show a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension 6 months after renal-artery denervation as compared with a sham control. (Funded by Medtronic; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01418261.).

Colombian experience with transcatheter aortic valve implantation of medtronic CoreValve.

At our institutions, increasing numbers of aortic stenosis patients were not candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement. Accordingly, we initiated the Cali Colombian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) program. From March 2008 through January 2011, 53 consecutive patients (mean age, 79 ± 6 yr; men, 58%) underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve System, and data were prospectively collected. Our study's endpoints conformed with Valve Academic Research Consortium recommendations. We report our clinical results.Predicted mortality rates were 25% (interquartile range, 17%-34%) according to logistic EuroSCORE and 6% (interquartile range, 3%-8%) according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. The 30-day mortality rate was 9% (3 intraprocedural deaths, 5 total). The combined 30-day safety endpoint was 30% (major vascular sequelae, 23%; life-threatening bleeding, 12%; myocardial infarction, 4%; major stroke, 4%; and acute kidney injury [stage 3], 2%). Eight patients (15%) required post-implantation balloon dilation and 2 (4%) required valve-in-valve implantation, for a technical device success rate of 77%. Mean peak transvalvular gradient decreased from 74 ± 29 to 17 ± 8 mmHg and mean transvalvular gradient from 40 ± 17 to 8 ± 4 mmHg (both P=0.001). Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation decreased from 32% to 18% (P=0.12) and mitral regurgitation from 32% to 13% (P=0.002). The 1-year survival rate was 81%.We found that TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis was safe and feasible, with sustained long-term results, for treating aortic stenosis in patients at excessive surgical risk; nonetheless, serious adverse events occurred in 30% of the patients.

An academic center's delivery of care after the Haitian earthquake.

The Miller School of Medicine of the University of Miami and Project Medishare, an affiliated not-for-profit organization, provided a large-scale relief effort in Haiti after the earthquake of 12 January 2010. Their experience demonstrates that academic medical centers in proximity to natural disasters can help deliver effective medical care through a coordinated process involving mobilization of their own resources, establishment of focused management teams at home and on the ground with formal organizational oversight, and partnership with governmental and nongovernmental relief agencies. Proximity to the disaster area allows for prompt arrival of medical personnel and equipment. The recruitment and organized deployment of large numbers of local and national volunteers are indispensable parts of this effort. Multidisciplinary teams on short rotations can form the core of the medical response.

Comparison of late luminal loss response pattern after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation or conventional stenting.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the pattern of late luminal loss after sirolimus-eluting or bare stent implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 238 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents and 526 patients treated with conventional stents. The distribution of late loss of sirolimus stents was largely skewed to the right and differed from the distribution for bare stents. When divided according to the presence of binary restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%), restenotic lesions in the bare stent group (26.0%) had a late loss of 1.40+/-0.64 mm and in the sirolimus group (7.9%) of 1.16+/-0.76 mm. Nonrestenotic lesions in the bare stent group had a late loss of 0.58+/-0.44 mm, whereas the late loss of nonrestenotic lesions in the sirolimus group remained close to zero (-0.05+/-0.33 mm). Differences between poststenting and follow-up measurements in the sirolimus group (late loss) resembled variations observed in repeated angiographic measurements, as assessed from a random sample of 30 segments measured repeatedly. After multivariate adjustment, stent type did not influence the degree of late loss in restenotic lesions. However, nonrestenotic bare stents had a significantly larger estimated luminal loss (0.58 mm; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.65) than sirolimus-eluting stents, for which the predicted late loss was almost 0 (-0.04 mm; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of late loss after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation follows a peculiar behavior, different from lesions treated with conventional stents. Whether this is explained by an unusual statistical distribution or a biological all-or-none response of restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stenting remains to be investigated.