Short- and long-term outcome after carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection: single-center experience within a prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting is an alternative method to surgical endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-one consecutive patients (71+/-9 years) undergoing 405 carotid artery interventions at a single cardiologic center were studied prospectively within a therapy registry. In general, the interventional procedure was performed using neuroprotective devices to prevent distal embolization. Stents were used routinely whenever possible. Independent neurological assessment took place prior to and after carotid stenting. The neurological event rate was assessed in the early (<30 days) and late post interventional period. In asymptomatic patients, 286 interventions were done with a 30-day stroke rate of 1.3% (ipsilateral 1.0%). In symptomatic patients, strokes occurred in a significantly (p<0.005) higher rate of 5.0% after 119 interventions (all ipsilateral). At long-term follow-up (mean 728+/-548 days) additional strokes occurred ipsilateral to the side of carotid intervention in 0.4% of asymptomatic patients (1.7% of symptomatic patients); contralateral strokes were seen at long-term follow-up in 1.1% of asymptomatic (1.7% of symptomatic) patients. Due to their comorbidities, 1.6% of patients died early, and an additional 11.1% late after carotid stenting. CONCLUSION: Carotid artery stenting with the general use of neuroprotective devices yields acceptable shortterm results with respect to neurological events. Asymptomatic patients have significantly less periprocedural strokes than symptomatic patients. Neurological events during long-term follow-up are rare, in particular ipsilateral to the side of carotid stenting. Thus, carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection is a safe method for carotid revascularization, with acceptable periprocedural events, particularly in asymptomatic patients, and a good long-term neurologic outcome.

Selenium in Intensive Care (SIC): results of a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-center study in patients with severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, and septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is associated with an increase in reactive oxygen species and low endogenous antioxidative capacity. We postulated that high-dose supplementation of sodium-selenite would improve the outcome of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-center trial. SETTING: Eleven intensive care units in Germany. PATIENTS: Patients were 249 patients with severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, and septic shock and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score >70. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received 1000 microg of sodium-selenite as a 30-min bolus injection, followed by 14 daily continuous infusions of 1000 microg intravenously, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was 28-day mortality; secondary end points were survival time and clinical course of APACHE III and logistic organ dysfunction system scores. In addition, selenium levels in serum, whole blood, and urine as well as serum glutathione-peroxidase-3 activity were measured. From 249 patients included, 11 patients had to be excluded. The intention-to-treat analysis of the remaining 238 patients revealed a mortality rate of 50.0% in the placebo group and 39.7% in the selenium-treated group (p = .109; odds ratio, 0.66; confidence interval, 0.39-1.1). A further 49 patients had to be excluded before the final analysis because of severe violations of the study protocol. In the remaining 92 patients of the study group, the 28-day mortality rate was significantly reduced to 42.4% compared with 56.7% in 97 patients of the placebo group (p = .049, odds ratio, 0.56; confidence interval, 0.32-1.00). In predefined subgroup analyses, the mortality rate was significantly reduced in patients with septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation (n = 82, p = .018) as well as in the most critically ill patients with an APACHE III score > or =102 (>75% quartile, n = 54, p = .040) or in patients with more than three organ dysfunctions (n = 83, p = .039). Whole blood selenium concentrations and glutathione peroxidase-3 activity were within the upper normal range during selenium treatment, whereas they remained significantly low in the placebo group. There were no side effects observed due to high-dose sodium-selenite treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The adjuvant treatment of patients with high-dose sodium-selenite reduces mortality rate in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Assessment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy late after heart transplantation: when is coronary angiography necessary?

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) represents a major prognostic factor in long-term survivors of heart transplantation (HTx). Reliable diagnosis of CAV late after HTx is important but remains the domain of invasive techniques such as coronary angiography. METHODS: To test alternative approaches, 54 consecutive HTx recipients (mean time since HTx: 52 months) were studied with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), angiography, dobutamine stress echocardiography and immunofluorescence staining against anti-thrombin III (AT-III) in endomyocardial biopsies. Univariate and multivariate predictors as well as receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves of different sets of predictors were calculated. RESULTS: Using IVUS as reference standard, CAV was present in 80% of subjects. Coronary angiography identified CAV correctly in only 44% of cases. If AT-III staining alone was used as a diagnostic criterion, CAV was correctly identified in 77% of subjects. In a multivariate analysis, only AT-III, donor age and echocardiography at rest emerged as independent predictors of CAV (p < 0.05 for all), yielding an excellent discriminative power. CONCLUSIONS: With almost equal reliability when compared with IVUS, CAV can be identified using information on donor age, wall motion score at rest and AT-III staining late after HTx. Coronary angiography may be limited to patients with a high probability score and should not be used routinely for surveillance of CAV.

Coronary Doppler measurements do not predict progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy: analysis by serial intracoronary Doppler, dobutamine stress echocardiography, and intracoronary ultrasound.

Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) (maximum/baseline flow velocity, 16 microg adenosine) was compared with dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) (5 to 40 microg/kg/min) to assess the progression of angiographically silent cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). As a reference for the morphologic assessment of CAV, serial intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) measurements were performed. An increase in CFVR could be observed in all transplant patients despite morphologic or functional progression of CAV or non-progressive CAV as assessed by ICUS or DSE. Thus, serial intracoronary Doppler flow analysis is not useful to predict morphologic or functional progression of CAV.