In-frame triplet deletions in RHD alter the D antigen phenotype

BACKGROUND: The deletion of three adjacent nucleotides in an exon may cause the lack of a single amino acid, while the protein sequence remains otherwise unchanged. Only one such in-frame deletion is known in the two RH genes, represented by the RHCE allele ceBP expressing a "very weak e antigen." STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood donor samples were recognized because of discrepant results of D phenotyping. Six samples came from Switzerland and one from Northern Germany. The molecular structures were determined by genomic DNA nucleotide sequencing of RHD. RESULTS: Two different variant D antigens were explained by RHD alleles harboring one in-frame triplet deletion each. Both single-amino-acid deletions led to partial D phenotypes with weak D antigen expression. Because of their D category V-like phenotypes, the RHD(Arg229del) allele was dubbed DVL-1 and the RHD(Lys235del) allele DVL-2. These in-frame triplet deletions are located in GAGAA or GAAGA repeats of the RHD exon 5. CONCLUSION: Partial D may be caused by a single-amino-acid deletion in RhD. The altered RhD protein segments in DVL types are adjacent to the extracellular loop 4, which constitutes one of the most immunogenic parts of the D antigen. These RhD protein segments are also altered in all DV, which may explain the similarity in phenotype. At the nucleotide level, the triplet deletions may have resulted from replication slippage. A total of nine amino acid positions in an Rhesus protein may be affected by this mechanism.

Impact of vessel size on outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a subgroup analysis of the SIRTAX trial

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) within a randomized trial (SIRTAX [Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Revascularization]). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention in small-vessel disease is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A total of 1,012 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcome was performed up to 2 years after PCI according to size of the treated vessel (reference vessel diameter < or =2.75 vs. >2.75 mm). RESULTS: Of 1,012 patients, 370 patients (37%) with 495 lesions underwent stent implantation in small vessels only, 504 patients (50%) with 613 lesions in large vessels only, and 138 patients (14%) with 301 lesions in both small and large vessels (mixed). In patients with small-vessel stents, SES reduced MACE by 55% (10.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.004), mainly driven by a 69% reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (6.0% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.001) compared with PES at 2 years. In patients with large- and mixed-vessel stents, rates of MACE (large: 10.4% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.33; mixed: 16.7% vs. 18.0%; p = 0.83) and TLR (large: 6.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.47; mixed: 16.7% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.86) were similar for SES and PES. There were no significant differences with respect to death and myocardial infarction between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PES, SES more effectively reduced MACE and TLR in small-vessel disease. Differences between SES and PES appear less pronounced in patients with large- and mixed-vessel disease. (The SIRTAX trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00297661?order=1; NCT00297661).

Outcome of elderly patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

AIM: To investigate the outcome of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in elderly patients (>/=>/=75 years) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2003, a total of 319 consecutive patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting within 6-12 hr after onset of symptoms were prospectively enrolled in a registry. Of 296 patients undergoing primary PCI, 40 patients were >/=>/=75 years old (group A) and 256 patients younger than 75 years (group B). Elderly patients presented with a lower ejection fraction (49 +/- 14% vs. 53 +/- 13%, P = 0.046) and a higher number of cardiovascular risk factors. PCI success was achieved in 80% (group A) and 91% (group B, P = 0.031), respectively with comparable door-to-balloon times (87 +/- 49 and 95 +/- 79 min, P = ns). Periprocedural complications in both groups were low and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and cardiac rehospitalization) after 6 months amounted to 23% (group A) and 20% (group B, P = ns), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome of elderly patients (>/=>/=75 years) with acute STEMI is favorable and comparable with the middle-aged population. However, procedural success was significantly lower in elderly (80%) compared to younger patients (90%). Acute percutaneous coronary intervention appears to be safe and not associated with higher periprocedural complications, in elderly patients.

Two-year clinical outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients

Aims Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients is associated with an increased risk of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We assessed the impact of diabetes on long-term outcome after PCI with sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents. Methods and results In the SIRTAX trial, 1012 patients were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of outcomes was performed according to the presence or absence of diabetes. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between SES and PES in patients with (N = 201) and without diabetes (N = 811). Clinical outcome was worse in diabetic compared with non-diabetic patients regarding death (9.0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.004) and MACE (defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or TLR; 19.9% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.007) at 2 years. Among diabetic patients, SES reduced MACE by 47% (14.8% vs. 25.8%, HR = 0.52, P = 0.05) and TLR by 61% (7.4% vs. 17.2%, HR = 0.39, P = 0.03) compared with PES at 2 years. Conclusion Diabetic patients have worse prognosis than non-diabetic patients undergoing PCI with DES. Among the diabetic patient population of this trial, SES reduce repeat revascularization procedures and MACE more effectively than PES and to a similar degree as in non-diabetic patients.