IN.PACT Amphirion paclitaxel eluting balloon versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for infrapopliteal revascularization of critical limb ischemia: rationale and protocol for an ongoing randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND The effectiveness and durability of endovascular revascularization therapies for chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI) are challenged by the extensive burden of infrapopliteal arterial disease and lesion-related characteristics (e.g., severe calcification, chronic total occlusions), which frequently result in poor clinical outcomes. While infrapopliteal vessel patency directly affects pain relief and wound healing, sustained patency and extravascular care both contribute to the ultimate "patient-centric" outcomes of functional limb preservation, mobility and quality of life (QoL). METHODS/DESIGN IN.PACT DEEP is a 2:1 randomized controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of infrapopliteal arterial revascularization between the IN.PACT Amphirion™ paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon (IA-DEB) and standard balloon angioplasty (PTA) in patients with Rutherford Class 4-5-6 CLI. DISCUSSION This multicenter trial has enrolled 358 patients at 13 European centers with independent angiographic core lab adjudication of the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion late luminal loss (LLL) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in major amputation-free surviving patients through 12-months. An independent wound core lab will evaluate all ischemic wounds to assess the extent of healing and time to healing at 1, 6, and 12 months. A QoL questionnaire including a pain scale will assess changes from baseline scores through 12 months. A Clinical Events Committee and Data Safety Monitoring Board will adjudicate the composite primary safety endpoints of all-cause death, major amputation, and clinically driven TLR at 6 months and other trial endpoints and supervise patient safety throughout the study. All patients will be followed for 5 years. A literature review is presented of the current status of endovascular treatment of CLI with drug-eluting balloon and standard PTA. The rationale and design of the IN.PACT DEEP Trial are discussed. IN.PACT DEEP is a milestone, prospective, randomized, robust, independent core lab-adjudicated CLI trial that will evaluate the role of a new infrapopliteal revascularization technology, the IA-DEB, compared to PTA. It will assess the overall impact on infrapopliteal artery patency, limb salvage, wound healing, pain control, QoL, and patient mobility. The 1-year results of the adjudicated co-primary and secondary endpoints will be available in 2014. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00941733

Bouveret's syndrome: presentation of two cases with review of the literature and development of a surgical treatment strategy

BACKGROUND Bouveret's syndrome causes gastric outlet obstruction when a gallstone is impacted in the duodenum or stomach via a bilioenteric fistula. It is a rare condition that causes significant morbidity and mortality and often occurs in the elderly with significant comorbidities. Individual diagnostic and treatment strategies are required for optimal management and outcome. The purpose of this paper is to develop a surgical strategy for optimized individual treatment of Bouveret's syndrome based on the available literature and motivated by our own experience. CASE PRESENTATION Two cases of Bouveret's syndrome are presented with individual management and restrictive surgical approaches tailored to the condition of the patients and intraoperative findings. CONCLUSIONS Improved diagnostics and restrictive individual surgical approaches have shown to lower the mortality rates of Bouveret's syndrome. For optimized outcome of the individual patient: The medical and perioperative management and time of surgery are tailored to the condition of the patient. CT-scan is most often required to secure the diagnosis. The surgical approach includes enterolithotomy alone or in combination with simultaneous or subsequent cholecystectomy and fistula repair. Lower overall morbidity and mortality are in favor of restrictive surgical approaches. The surgical strategy is adapted to the intraoperative findings and to the risk for secondary complications vs. the age and comorbidities of the patient.

Treatment modalities for T1N0 esophageal cancers: a comparative analysis of local therapy versus surgical resection

BACKGROUND To investigate the role of nonsurgical treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer, we compared the outcomes of local therapy to esophagectomy, using a large, national database. METHODS Five-year cancer-specific and overall survival (OS) of patients, with T1N0M0 squamous cell or adenocarcinoma of the mid or distal esophagus treated with either surgery or local therapy, with ablative and/or excision techniques, in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry from 1998 to 2008, were compared using the Kaplan-Meier approach, and multivariable and propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional hazard, and competing risk models. RESULTS Of 1458 patients with T1N0 esophageal cancer, 1204 (83%) had surgery and 254 (17%) had local therapy only. The use of local therapy increased significantly from 8.1% in 1998 to 24.1% in 2008 (p < 0.001). The 5-year OS after local excisional therapy and surgery was not significantly different (55.5% versus 64.1% respectively, p = 0.07), and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) also did not differ (81.7% versus 75.8%, p = 0.10). However, after propensity-score adjustment, CSS was better for patients who underwent local therapy compared with those who underwent surgery (hazard ratio: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.77, p = 0.003), whereas OS remained similar. CONCLUSION The use of local therapy for T1N0 esophageal cancers increased significantly from 1998 to 2008. Compared with those treated with esophagectomy, patients treated with local therapy had similar OS but improved CSS, indicating a higher chance of dying from other causes. Further studies are needed to confirm the oncologic efficacy of local therapy when used in patients whose lifespans are not limited by conditions other than esophageal cancer.

Evaluating the optimal timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Surgical site infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections among surgical patients. The administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical site infections . The optimal timing of this procedure is still a matter of debate. While most studies suggest that it should be given as close to the incision time as possible, others conclude that this may be too late for optimal prevention of surgical site infections. A large observational study suggests that surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered 74 to 30 minutes before surgery. The aim of this article is to report the design and protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the optimal timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis.Methods/design: In this bi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland, we plan to include 5,000 patients undergoing general, oncologic, vascular and orthopedic trauma procedures. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: one receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (75 to 30 minutes before incision) and the other receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room (less than 30 minutes before incision). We expect a significantly lower rate of surgical site infections with surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis administered more than 30 minutes before the scheduled incision. The primary outcome is the occurrence of surgical site infections during a 30-day follow-up period (one year with an implant in place). When assuming a 5 surgical site infection risk with administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room, the planned sample size has an 80% power to detect a relative risk reduction for surgical site infections of 33% when administering surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (with a two-sided type I error of 5%). We expect the study to be completed within three years. DISCUSSION The results of this randomized controlled trial will have an important impact on current international guidelines for infection control strategies in the hospital. Moreover, the results of this randomized controlled trial are of significant interest for patient safety and healthcare economics.Trial registration: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01790529.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Background Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt chromium DES with silicon carbide coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in an all-comers patient population. Design The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SES or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary endpoint target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for non-inferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide 80% power to detect non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a one-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through five years. Conclusion The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is non-inferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Total surgical aortic arch replacement as a safe strategy to treat complex multisegmental proximal thoracic aortic pathology.

OBJECTIVE To analyse the results after elective open total aortic arch replacement. METHODS We analysed 39 patients (median age 63 years, median logistic EuroSCORE 18.4) who underwent elective open total arch replacement between 2005 and 2012. RESULTS In-hospital mortality was 5.1% (n = 2) and perioperative neurological injury was 12.8% (n = 5). The indication for surgery was degenerative aneurysmal disease in 59% (n = 23) and late aneurysmal formation following previous surgery of type A aortic dissection in 35.9% (n = 14); 5.1% (n = 2) were due to anastomotical aneurysms after prior ascending repair. Fifty-nine percent (n = 23) of the patients had already undergone previous proximal thoracic aortic surgery. In 30.8% (n = 12) of them, a conventional elephant trunk was added to total arch replacement, in 28.2% (n = 11), root replacement was additionally performed. Median hypothermic circulatory arrest time was 42 min (21-54 min). Selective antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 95% (n = 37) of patients. Median follow-up was 11 months [interquartile range (IQR) 1-20 months]. There was no late death and no need for reoperation during this period. CONCLUSIONS Open total aortic arch replacement shows very satisfying results. The number of patients undergoing total arch replacement as a redo procedure and as a part of a complex multisegmental aortic pathology is high. Future strategies will have to emphasize neurological protection in extensive simultaneous replacement of the aortic arch and adjacent segments.

Optimal Workflow and Process-Based Performance Measures for Endovascular Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Analysis of the Solitaire FR Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We report on workflow and process-based performance measures and their effect on clinical outcome in Solitaire FR Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization (STAR), a multicenter, prospective, single-arm study of Solitaire FR thrombectomy in large vessel anterior circulation stroke patients. METHODS Two hundred two patients were enrolled across 14 centers in Europe, Canada, and Australia. The following time intervals were measured: stroke onset to hospital arrival, hospital arrival to baseline imaging, baseline imaging to groin puncture, groin puncture to first stent deployment, and first stent deployment to reperfusion. Effects of time of day, general anesthesia use, and multimodal imaging on workflow were evaluated. Patient characteristics and workflow processes associated with prolonged interval times and good clinical outcome (90-day modified Rankin score, 0-2) were analyzed. RESULTS Median times were onset of stroke to hospital arrival, 123 minutes (interquartile range, 163 minutes); hospital arrival to thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 or final digital subtraction angiography, 133 minutes (interquartile range, 99 minutes); and baseline imaging to groin puncture, 86 minutes (interquartile range, 24 minutes). Time from baseline imaging to puncture was prolonged in patients receiving intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (32-minute mean delay) and when magnetic resonance-based imaging at baseline was used (18-minute mean delay). Extracranial carotid disease delayed puncture to first stent deployment time on average by 25 minutes. For each 1-hour increase in stroke onset to final digital subtraction angiography (or TICI 2b/3) time, odds of good clinical outcome decreased by 38%. CONCLUSIONS Interval times in the STAR study reflect current intra-arterial therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Improving workflow metrics can further improve clinical outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01327989.