Measurement of the production of a W boson in association with a charm quark in pp collisions at sqrts = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The production of a W boson in association with a single charm quark is studied using 4.6 fb−1 of pp collision data at ps = 7TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. In events in which a W boson decays to an electron or muon, the charm quark is tagged either by its semileptonic decay to a muon or by the presence of a charmed meson. The integrated and differential cross sections as a function of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W-boson decay are measured. Results are compared to the predictions of next-to-leading-order QCD calculations obtained from various parton distribution function parameterisations. The ratio of the strange-to-down sea-quark distributions is determined to be 0.96+0.26−0.30 at Q2 = 1.9 GeV2, which supports the hypothesis of an SU(3)-symmetric composition of the light-quark sea. Additionally, the cross-section ratio ơ(W++c)/ơ(W−+c) is compared to the predictions obtained using parton distribution function parameterisations with different assumptions about the s–s quark asymmetry.

Measurement of the production cross section of prompt J/ψ mesons in association with a W± boson in pp collisions at √8 = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The process pp ! W±J/ provides a powerful probe of the production mechanism of charmonium in hadronic collisions, and is also sensitive to multiple parton interactions in the colliding protons. Using the 2011 ATLAS dataset of 4.5 fb−1 of p s =7TeV pp collisions at the LHC, the first observation is made of the production of W± +prompt J/ events in hadronic collisions, using W± → μѵμ and Jψ → μ+μ−. A yield of 27.4+7.5−6.5 W± + prompt J/ψ events is observed, with a statistical significance of 5.1ơ. The production rate as a ratio to the inclusive W± boson production rate is measured, and the double parton scattering contribution to the cross section is estimated.

Procedural Results and Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Switzerland: An Observational Cohort Study of Sapien 3 Versus Sapien XT Transcatheter Heart Valves.

BACKGROUND New generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) may improve clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS In a nationwide, prospective, multicenter cohort study (Swiss Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry, NCT01368250), outcomes of consecutive transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients treated with the Sapien 3 THV (S3) versus the Sapien XT THV (XT) were investigated. An overall of 153 consecutive S3 patients were compared with 445 consecutive XT patients. Postprocedural mean transprosthetic gradient (6.5±3.0 versus 7.8±6.3 mm Hg, P=0.17) did not differ between S3 and XT patients, respectively. The rate of more than mild paravalvular regurgitation (1.3% versus 5.3%, P=0.04) and of vascular (5.3% versus 16.9%, P<0.01) complications were significantly lower in S3 patients. A higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantations was observed in patients receiving the S3 valve (17.0% versus 11.0%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences for disabling stroke (S3 1.3% versus XT 3.1%, P=0.29) and all-cause mortality (S3 3.3% versus XT 4.5%, P=0.27). CONCLUSIONS The use of the new generation S3 balloon-expandable THV reduced the risk of more than mild paravalvular regurgitation and vascular complications but was associated with an increased permanent pacemaker rate compared with the XT. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the newest generation balloon-expandable THV is associated with a low risk of stroke and favorable clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01368250.

Impact of Diabetic Status on Outcomes After Revascularization With Drug-Eluting Stents in Relation to Coronary Artery Disease Complexity: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6081 Patients.

BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus and angiographic coronary artery disease complexity are intertwined and unfavorably affect prognosis after percutaneous coronary interventions, but their relative impact on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial. This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic status and coronary artery disease complexity as assessed by the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. METHODS AND RESULTS In a patient-level pooled analysis from 4 all-comers trials, 6081 patients were stratified according to diabetic status and according to the median SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years. Diabetes mellitus was present in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 173 diabetics (14.5%) and 436 nondiabetic patients (9.9%; P<0.001). In adjusted Cox regression analyses, SYNTAX score and diabetes mellitus were both associated with the primary end point (P<0.001 and P=0.028, respectively; P for interaction, 0.07). In multivariable analyses, diabetic versus nondiabetic patients had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P=0.002) but similar risks of cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.07; P=0.08) and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.22; P=0.45), without significant interaction with SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11 for any of the end points. CONCLUSIONS In this population treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the spectrum of disease complexity. The SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of 2-year outcomes but did not modify the respective effect of diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00297661, NCT00389220, NCT00617084, and NCT01443104.

The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.

OBJECTIVE We endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in UIA management and research. METHODS An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement). RESULTS The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033). CONCLUSIONS This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA.