Bridge Therapy before Liver Transplant for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common primary liver tumor. Orthotopic liver transplant is one of the best treatment options, but its waiting list has to be considered. Bridge therapies have been introduced in order to limit this issue. The aim of this study is to evaluate if bridge therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma can improve overall survival and reduce de-listing. We selected 185 articles. The search was limited to English articles involving only adult patients. These were deduplicated and articles with incomplete text or irrelevant conclusions were excluded. Sorafenib is the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increases overall survival without any significant drug toxicity. However, its survival benefit is limited. The combination of transarterial chemoembolization + sorafenib, instead, delays tumor progression, although its survival benefit is still uncertain. A few studies have shown that patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization + radiation therapy have similar or even better outcomes than those undergoing transarterial chemoembolization or sorafenib alone for rates of histopathologic complete response (89% had no residual in the explant). Also, the combined therapy of transarterial chemoembolization + radiotherapy + sorafenib was compared to the association of transarterial chemoembolization + radiotherapy and was associated with a better survival rate (24 vs. 17 months). Moreover, immunotherapy revealed new encouraging perspectives. Combination therapies showed the most encouraging results and could become the gold standard as a bridge to transplant for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Interventional Bridging Therapy for Radical Cardiac Surgery in a Patient Seemed to be Inoperable Due to Very Poor Left Ventricular Function: A Case Report.

Cases that are inoperable owing to poor preoperative conditions are sometimes encountered. However, there are some cases that are led to radical treatment by performing bridge therapy. Here, we presented a case of a patient with complex cardiac disease in an inoperable state who underwent bridging therapy that led to successful surgical treatment. A 73-year-old male who received hemodialysis treatment and had severe aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease planned surgical treatment. However, he was deemed inoperable owing to his low cardiac function and hemodynamic instability. Therefore, to escape from a fatal condition, we first performed balloon aortic valvuloplasty and percutaneous coronary intervention as palliative procedures. Subsequently, his cardiac function and hemodynamic stability remarkably improved; therefore, after 1 month, we performed a successful radical surgical treatment. Even in inoperable patients, bridging therapy leading to radical treatment is possible.

Feasibility and safety of bridge therapy with active fixed electrodes connected to external permanent pacemakers for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation / 中华心血管病杂志

Objective: To analyze the feasibility and safety of bridge therapy with active fixed electrodes connected to external permanent pacemakers (AFLEP) for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: A total of 44 pacemaker-dependent patients, who underwent lead removal due to infective endocarditis in our center from January 2015 to January 2020, were included. According to AFLEP or temporary pacemaker option during the transition period, patients were divided into AFLEP group or temporary pacemaker group. Information including age, sex, comorbidities, indications and types of cardial implantable electionic device (CIED) implantation, lead age, duration of temporary pacemaker or AFLEP use, and perioperative complications were collected through Haitai Medical Record System. The incidence of pacemaker perception, abnormal pacing function, lead perforation, lead dislocation, lead vegetation, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, death and newly infection of implanted pacemaker were compared between the two groups. Pneumothorax, hematoma and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis were also analyzed. Results: Among the 44 patients, 24 were in the AFLEP group and 20 in the temporary pacemaker group. Age was younger in the AFLEP group than in the temporary pacemaker group (57.5(45.5, 66.0) years vs. 67.0(57.3, 71.8) years, P=0.023). Male, prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal dysfunction and old myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups (all P>0.05). Lead duration was 11.0(8.0,13.0) years in the AFLEP group and 8.5(7.0,13.0) years in the temporary pacemaker group(P=0.292). Lead vegetation diameter was (8.2±2.4)mm in the AFLEP group and (9.1±3.0)mm in the temporary pacemaker group. Lead removal was successful in all patients. The follow-up time in the AFLEP group was 23.0(20.5, 25.5) months, and the temporary pacemaker group was 17.0(14.5, 18.5) months. In the temporary pacemaker group, there were 2 cases (10.0%) of lead dislocation, 2 cases (10.0%) of sensory dysfunction, 2 cases (10.0%) of pacing dysfunction, and 2 cases (10.0%) of death. In the AFLEP group, there were 2 cases of abnormal pacing function, which improved after adjusting the output voltage of the pacemaker, there was no lead dislocation, abnormal perception and death. Femoral vein access was used in 8 patients (40.0%) in the temporary pacemaker group, and 4 patients developed lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. There was no deep venous thrombosis in the AFLEP group. The transition treatment time was significantly longer in the AFLEP group than in the temporary pacemaker group (19.5(16.0, 25.8) days vs. 14.0(12.0, 16.8) days, P=0.001). During the follow-up period, there were no reinfections with newly implanted pacemakers in the AFLEP group, and reinfection occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) in the temporary pacemaker group. Conclusions: Bridge therapy with AFLEP for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation is feasible and safe. Compared with temporary pacemaker, AFLEP is safer in the implantation process and more stable with lower lead dislocation rate, less sensory and pacing dysfunction.