Cardiopulmonary Bypass has No Significant Impact on Survival in Patients Undergoing Nephrectomy and Level III-IV Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy. A Multi-Institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE The impact of cardiopulmonary bypass in level III-IV tumor thrombectomy on surgical and oncologic outcomes is unknown. We determine the impact of cardiopulmonary bypass on overall and cancer specific survival, as well as surgical complication rates and immediate outcomes in patients undergoing nephrectomy and level III-IV tumor thrombectomy with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 362 patients with renal cell cancer and with level III or IV tumor thrombus from 1992 to 2012 at 22 U.S. and European centers. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall and cancer specific survival between patients with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. Perioperative mortality and complication rates were assessed using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Median overall survival was 24.6 months in noncardiopulmonary bypass cases and 26.6 months in cardiopulmonary bypass cases. Overall survival and cancer specific survival did not differ significantly in both groups on univariate analysis or when adjusting for known risk factors. On multivariate analysis no significant differences were seen in hospital length of stay, Clavien 1-4 complication rate, intraoperative or 30-day mortality and cancer specific survival. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS In our multi-institutional analysis the use of cardiopulmonary bypass did not significantly impact cancer specific survival or overall survival in patients undergoing nephrectomy and level III or IV tumor thrombectomy. Neither approach was independently associated with increased mortality on multivariate analysis. Greater surgical complications were not independently associated with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .).

Manually calculated oesophageal bolus clearance time increases in parallel with reflux severity at impedance-pH monitoring.

BACKGROUND Oesophageal clearance has been scarcely studied. AIMS Oesophageal clearance in endoscopy-negative heartburn was assessed to detect differences in bolus clearance time among patients sub-grouped according to impedance-pH findings. METHODS In 118 consecutive endoscopy-negative heartburn patients impedance-pH monitoring was performed off-therapy. Acid exposure time, number of refluxes, baseline impedance, post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and both automated and manual bolus clearance time were calculated. Patients were sub-grouped into pH/impedance positive (abnormal acid exposure and/or number of refluxes) and pH/impedance negative (normal acid exposure and number of refluxes), the former further subdivided on the basis of abnormal/normal acid exposure time (pH+/-) and abnormal/normal number of refluxes (impedance+/-). RESULTS Poor correlation (r=0.35) between automated and manual bolus clearance time was found. Manual bolus clearance time progressively decreased from pH+/impedance+ (42.6s), pH+/impedance- (27.1s), pH-/impedance+ (17.8s) to pH-/impedance- (10.8s). There was an inverse correlation between manual bolus clearance time and both baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index, and a direct correlation between manual bolus clearance and acid exposure time. A manual bolus clearance time value of 14.8s had an accuracy of 93% to differentiate pH/impedance positive from pH/impedance negative patients. CONCLUSIONS When manually measured, bolus clearance time reflects reflux severity, confirming the pathophysiological relevance of oesophageal clearance in reflux disease.