User login
November 2018 Highlights
Endoscopic vein-graft harvest equals open harvest at 3 years
CHICAGO – Patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous veins harvested endoscopically had similar clinical outcomes after nearly 3 years of follow-up as those seen with patients who received vein grafts taken by open harvesting in a multicenter, randomized trial in the United States with 1,150 patients.
As expected, follow-up also showed that endoscopic vein-graft harvesting (EVH) resulted in about half the number of wound infections as did open vein-graft harvesting (OVH). This combination of similar clinical outcomes after a median 2.8 years of follow-up, as well as fewer leg-wound adverse events, makes EVH “the preferred vein-harvesting modality,” Marco A. Zenati, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Although patients far and away prefer EVH because of the reduced pain and faster healing, questions about its clinical efficacy when compared with that of OVH have lingered. That’s because observational data published almost a decade ago taken from the PREVENT IV (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV) trial suggested that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using vein grafts collected by EVH had more vein-graft failures after 12-18 months and a higher rate of death, MI, or need for revascularization after 3 years, compared with patients treated using OVH (N Engl J Med. 2009 July 16;361[3]:235-44).
The results from the prospective, randomized trial reported by Dr. Zenati “take the cloud away from endovascular vein-graft harvesting that PREVENT IV had made,” commented Timothy J. Gardner, MD, a cardiac surgeon who chaired the session.
“I think this answers the question,” commented Marc Ruel, MD, a professor of surgery and the chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Ottawa. “The results show that endoscopic harvesting of vein grafts is as good as open harvesting for preventing major adverse cardiac events, which is the goal of CABG. This is a definitive trial, with no trend toward more events with endoscopic harvested vein grafts,” said Dr. Ruel, the designated discussant for Dr. Zenati’s report.
However, the study did have some significant limitations, Dr. Ruel added. The new, randomized trial, run at 16 U.S. VA cardiac surgery centers, exclusively used surgeons who were experts in endovascular vein harvesting, which could have meant that they and their surgical teams were not as expert in open vein harvesting, he said. Also, in the broader context of CABG and conduit selection, new evidence suggests the superiority of pedicled vein grafts (Ann Thoracic Surg. 2017 Oct;104[4]1313-17), and “we could also do better by using the radial artery” rather than a saphenous vein graft, Dr. Ruel said. He cited a meta-analysis published in 2018 that showed the superiority of CABG when it combined an internal thoracic artery graft with a radial artery graft rather than with a vein graft (N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378[22]:2069-77).
“The operation of the future is not necessarily what you saw” in Dr. Zenati’s study, Dr. Ruel cautioned.
The results Dr. Zenati reported came from the REGROUP (Randomized End-Vein Graft Prospective) trial, which enrolled patients who underwent CABG during 2014-2017. All patients received an internal thoracic artery graft and were randomized to receive additional saphenous vein grafts with the conduits collected either by the EVH or OVH method. The study’s primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or need for repeat revascularization after a median follow-up of 2.8 years occurred in 14% of the patients who received vein grafts with EVH and in 16% of the patients who received grafts with OVH, a difference that was not statistically significant, reported Dr. Zenati, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the chief of cardiothoracic surgery for the VA Boston Health System. The incidence of wound infection was 3.1% in the OVH patients and 1.4% in the EVH patients, a difference that came close to but did not reach statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Zenati’s report, an article with the results appeared online (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa1812390).
The REGROUP trial did not collect data on vein-graft patency following CABG. The investigators were concerned about having enough patients return for follow-up angiography to produce a meaningful result for this endpoint, and they believed that the clinical endpoint they used sufficed for demonstrating equivalence of the two harvesting methods, Dr. Zenati said during his talk.
“The more arterial conduit used in CABG, the better the durability of the grafts, but often surgeons use vein grafts because there is not enough arterial conduit,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.* “The recovery from endoscopic vein-graft harvesting is very different from open harvesting. Endoscopic harvesting produces much less pain and infection, and recovery is much easier for patients, so it’s reassuring to see that the quality of the vein is not affected by endoscopic harvesting when done by experts,” he said.
Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
*Correction, 11/12/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.
This article was updated 11/14/18.
The results from the REGROUP trial are interesting and open the field for additional comparisons of endoscopic and open saphenous vein-graft harvesting, but this trial is not the definitive answer regarding whether these two harvesting approaches produce similar results. Greater reassurance of equivalence would come from studies that included more patients and a more diverse patient population; REGROUP largely enrolled male veterans and patients with multiple comorbidities. Longer follow-up is also needed. A median follow-up of 3 years is too brief for complete reassurance that long-term patency is the same with both approaches. It would also help to have follow-up data on graft patency. Many factors besides patency can lead to differences in clinical outcomes following coronary bypass surgery.
Endoscopic vein harvesting is preferred by patients, and it results in fewer wound infections, as was confirmed in REGROUP. Because of these advantages for endoscopic harvesting, it would be great if we could definitively document that these vein grafts functioned as well as those taken with open harvesting.
Evidence now suggests that the more arterial conduits used during coronary bypass, the better. If I were having triple-vessel bypass surgery, I’d want to get two thoracic-artery bypass grafts and a radial artery graft. But studies like REGROUP are important because a majority of heart surgeons use vein grafts for several reasons including convenience. Surgeons will likely continue to use vein grafts for the foreseeable future, so we need to know whether endoscopic harvesting is an acceptable approach.
Jennifer S. Lawton, MD , is a professor of surgery and chief of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The results from the REGROUP trial are interesting and open the field for additional comparisons of endoscopic and open saphenous vein-graft harvesting, but this trial is not the definitive answer regarding whether these two harvesting approaches produce similar results. Greater reassurance of equivalence would come from studies that included more patients and a more diverse patient population; REGROUP largely enrolled male veterans and patients with multiple comorbidities. Longer follow-up is also needed. A median follow-up of 3 years is too brief for complete reassurance that long-term patency is the same with both approaches. It would also help to have follow-up data on graft patency. Many factors besides patency can lead to differences in clinical outcomes following coronary bypass surgery.
Endoscopic vein harvesting is preferred by patients, and it results in fewer wound infections, as was confirmed in REGROUP. Because of these advantages for endoscopic harvesting, it would be great if we could definitively document that these vein grafts functioned as well as those taken with open harvesting.
Evidence now suggests that the more arterial conduits used during coronary bypass, the better. If I were having triple-vessel bypass surgery, I’d want to get two thoracic-artery bypass grafts and a radial artery graft. But studies like REGROUP are important because a majority of heart surgeons use vein grafts for several reasons including convenience. Surgeons will likely continue to use vein grafts for the foreseeable future, so we need to know whether endoscopic harvesting is an acceptable approach.
Jennifer S. Lawton, MD , is a professor of surgery and chief of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The results from the REGROUP trial are interesting and open the field for additional comparisons of endoscopic and open saphenous vein-graft harvesting, but this trial is not the definitive answer regarding whether these two harvesting approaches produce similar results. Greater reassurance of equivalence would come from studies that included more patients and a more diverse patient population; REGROUP largely enrolled male veterans and patients with multiple comorbidities. Longer follow-up is also needed. A median follow-up of 3 years is too brief for complete reassurance that long-term patency is the same with both approaches. It would also help to have follow-up data on graft patency. Many factors besides patency can lead to differences in clinical outcomes following coronary bypass surgery.
Endoscopic vein harvesting is preferred by patients, and it results in fewer wound infections, as was confirmed in REGROUP. Because of these advantages for endoscopic harvesting, it would be great if we could definitively document that these vein grafts functioned as well as those taken with open harvesting.
Evidence now suggests that the more arterial conduits used during coronary bypass, the better. If I were having triple-vessel bypass surgery, I’d want to get two thoracic-artery bypass grafts and a radial artery graft. But studies like REGROUP are important because a majority of heart surgeons use vein grafts for several reasons including convenience. Surgeons will likely continue to use vein grafts for the foreseeable future, so we need to know whether endoscopic harvesting is an acceptable approach.
Jennifer S. Lawton, MD , is a professor of surgery and chief of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
CHICAGO – Patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous veins harvested endoscopically had similar clinical outcomes after nearly 3 years of follow-up as those seen with patients who received vein grafts taken by open harvesting in a multicenter, randomized trial in the United States with 1,150 patients.
As expected, follow-up also showed that endoscopic vein-graft harvesting (EVH) resulted in about half the number of wound infections as did open vein-graft harvesting (OVH). This combination of similar clinical outcomes after a median 2.8 years of follow-up, as well as fewer leg-wound adverse events, makes EVH “the preferred vein-harvesting modality,” Marco A. Zenati, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Although patients far and away prefer EVH because of the reduced pain and faster healing, questions about its clinical efficacy when compared with that of OVH have lingered. That’s because observational data published almost a decade ago taken from the PREVENT IV (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV) trial suggested that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using vein grafts collected by EVH had more vein-graft failures after 12-18 months and a higher rate of death, MI, or need for revascularization after 3 years, compared with patients treated using OVH (N Engl J Med. 2009 July 16;361[3]:235-44).
The results from the prospective, randomized trial reported by Dr. Zenati “take the cloud away from endovascular vein-graft harvesting that PREVENT IV had made,” commented Timothy J. Gardner, MD, a cardiac surgeon who chaired the session.
“I think this answers the question,” commented Marc Ruel, MD, a professor of surgery and the chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Ottawa. “The results show that endoscopic harvesting of vein grafts is as good as open harvesting for preventing major adverse cardiac events, which is the goal of CABG. This is a definitive trial, with no trend toward more events with endoscopic harvested vein grafts,” said Dr. Ruel, the designated discussant for Dr. Zenati’s report.
However, the study did have some significant limitations, Dr. Ruel added. The new, randomized trial, run at 16 U.S. VA cardiac surgery centers, exclusively used surgeons who were experts in endovascular vein harvesting, which could have meant that they and their surgical teams were not as expert in open vein harvesting, he said. Also, in the broader context of CABG and conduit selection, new evidence suggests the superiority of pedicled vein grafts (Ann Thoracic Surg. 2017 Oct;104[4]1313-17), and “we could also do better by using the radial artery” rather than a saphenous vein graft, Dr. Ruel said. He cited a meta-analysis published in 2018 that showed the superiority of CABG when it combined an internal thoracic artery graft with a radial artery graft rather than with a vein graft (N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378[22]:2069-77).
“The operation of the future is not necessarily what you saw” in Dr. Zenati’s study, Dr. Ruel cautioned.
The results Dr. Zenati reported came from the REGROUP (Randomized End-Vein Graft Prospective) trial, which enrolled patients who underwent CABG during 2014-2017. All patients received an internal thoracic artery graft and were randomized to receive additional saphenous vein grafts with the conduits collected either by the EVH or OVH method. The study’s primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or need for repeat revascularization after a median follow-up of 2.8 years occurred in 14% of the patients who received vein grafts with EVH and in 16% of the patients who received grafts with OVH, a difference that was not statistically significant, reported Dr. Zenati, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the chief of cardiothoracic surgery for the VA Boston Health System. The incidence of wound infection was 3.1% in the OVH patients and 1.4% in the EVH patients, a difference that came close to but did not reach statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Zenati’s report, an article with the results appeared online (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa1812390).
The REGROUP trial did not collect data on vein-graft patency following CABG. The investigators were concerned about having enough patients return for follow-up angiography to produce a meaningful result for this endpoint, and they believed that the clinical endpoint they used sufficed for demonstrating equivalence of the two harvesting methods, Dr. Zenati said during his talk.
“The more arterial conduit used in CABG, the better the durability of the grafts, but often surgeons use vein grafts because there is not enough arterial conduit,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.* “The recovery from endoscopic vein-graft harvesting is very different from open harvesting. Endoscopic harvesting produces much less pain and infection, and recovery is much easier for patients, so it’s reassuring to see that the quality of the vein is not affected by endoscopic harvesting when done by experts,” he said.
Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
*Correction, 11/12/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.
This article was updated 11/14/18.
CHICAGO – Patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous veins harvested endoscopically had similar clinical outcomes after nearly 3 years of follow-up as those seen with patients who received vein grafts taken by open harvesting in a multicenter, randomized trial in the United States with 1,150 patients.
As expected, follow-up also showed that endoscopic vein-graft harvesting (EVH) resulted in about half the number of wound infections as did open vein-graft harvesting (OVH). This combination of similar clinical outcomes after a median 2.8 years of follow-up, as well as fewer leg-wound adverse events, makes EVH “the preferred vein-harvesting modality,” Marco A. Zenati, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Although patients far and away prefer EVH because of the reduced pain and faster healing, questions about its clinical efficacy when compared with that of OVH have lingered. That’s because observational data published almost a decade ago taken from the PREVENT IV (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV) trial suggested that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using vein grafts collected by EVH had more vein-graft failures after 12-18 months and a higher rate of death, MI, or need for revascularization after 3 years, compared with patients treated using OVH (N Engl J Med. 2009 July 16;361[3]:235-44).
The results from the prospective, randomized trial reported by Dr. Zenati “take the cloud away from endovascular vein-graft harvesting that PREVENT IV had made,” commented Timothy J. Gardner, MD, a cardiac surgeon who chaired the session.
“I think this answers the question,” commented Marc Ruel, MD, a professor of surgery and the chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Ottawa. “The results show that endoscopic harvesting of vein grafts is as good as open harvesting for preventing major adverse cardiac events, which is the goal of CABG. This is a definitive trial, with no trend toward more events with endoscopic harvested vein grafts,” said Dr. Ruel, the designated discussant for Dr. Zenati’s report.
However, the study did have some significant limitations, Dr. Ruel added. The new, randomized trial, run at 16 U.S. VA cardiac surgery centers, exclusively used surgeons who were experts in endovascular vein harvesting, which could have meant that they and their surgical teams were not as expert in open vein harvesting, he said. Also, in the broader context of CABG and conduit selection, new evidence suggests the superiority of pedicled vein grafts (Ann Thoracic Surg. 2017 Oct;104[4]1313-17), and “we could also do better by using the radial artery” rather than a saphenous vein graft, Dr. Ruel said. He cited a meta-analysis published in 2018 that showed the superiority of CABG when it combined an internal thoracic artery graft with a radial artery graft rather than with a vein graft (N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378[22]:2069-77).
“The operation of the future is not necessarily what you saw” in Dr. Zenati’s study, Dr. Ruel cautioned.
The results Dr. Zenati reported came from the REGROUP (Randomized End-Vein Graft Prospective) trial, which enrolled patients who underwent CABG during 2014-2017. All patients received an internal thoracic artery graft and were randomized to receive additional saphenous vein grafts with the conduits collected either by the EVH or OVH method. The study’s primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or need for repeat revascularization after a median follow-up of 2.8 years occurred in 14% of the patients who received vein grafts with EVH and in 16% of the patients who received grafts with OVH, a difference that was not statistically significant, reported Dr. Zenati, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the chief of cardiothoracic surgery for the VA Boston Health System. The incidence of wound infection was 3.1% in the OVH patients and 1.4% in the EVH patients, a difference that came close to but did not reach statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Zenati’s report, an article with the results appeared online (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa1812390).
The REGROUP trial did not collect data on vein-graft patency following CABG. The investigators were concerned about having enough patients return for follow-up angiography to produce a meaningful result for this endpoint, and they believed that the clinical endpoint they used sufficed for demonstrating equivalence of the two harvesting methods, Dr. Zenati said during his talk.
“The more arterial conduit used in CABG, the better the durability of the grafts, but often surgeons use vein grafts because there is not enough arterial conduit,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.* “The recovery from endoscopic vein-graft harvesting is very different from open harvesting. Endoscopic harvesting produces much less pain and infection, and recovery is much easier for patients, so it’s reassuring to see that the quality of the vein is not affected by endoscopic harvesting when done by experts,” he said.
Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
*Correction, 11/12/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.
This article was updated 11/14/18.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSION
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Clinical events occurred in 16% of open-harvest vein-graft patients and in 14% who received endoscopically harvested veins.
Study details: REGROUP, a multicenter, randomized trial with 1,150 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
Source: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
‘Organoid technology’ poised to transform cancer care
BOSTON– Imagine being able to .
The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.
It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.
After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.
Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.
Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.
“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.
“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.
BOSTON– Imagine being able to .
The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.
It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.
After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.
Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.
Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.
“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.
“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.
BOSTON– Imagine being able to .
The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.
It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.
After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.
Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.
Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.
“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.
“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.
REPORTING FROM THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
‘Watch and wait’ good for most – but not all – rectal cancers
BOSTON –
was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.
While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.
The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..
Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.
He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.
BOSTON –
was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.
While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.
The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..
Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.
He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.
BOSTON –
was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.
While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.
The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..
Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.
He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
How to slash colorectal surgery infection rates
BOSTON – driven mostly by a reduction in deep organ space infections from 5.5% to 1.7%.
It was a remarkable finding that got the attention of attendees at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. The Cleveland Clinic had been an outlier, in the wrong direction, compared with other centers, and administrators wanted a solution.
I. Emre Gorgun, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and quality improvement officer at Cleveland Clinic, led the search for evidence-based interventions. Eventually, big changes were made to perioperative antibiotics, mechanical bowel prep, preop shower routines, and intraoperative procedures. The efforts paid off (Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jan;61[1]:89-98).
To help surgeons lower their own infection rates, Dr. Gorgun agreed to an interview at the meeting to explain exactly what was done.
There was resistance at first from surgeons who wanted to stick with their routines, but they came around once they were shown the data backing the changes. Eventually, “everyone was on board. We believe in this,” Dr. Gorgun said.
BOSTON – driven mostly by a reduction in deep organ space infections from 5.5% to 1.7%.
It was a remarkable finding that got the attention of attendees at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. The Cleveland Clinic had been an outlier, in the wrong direction, compared with other centers, and administrators wanted a solution.
I. Emre Gorgun, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and quality improvement officer at Cleveland Clinic, led the search for evidence-based interventions. Eventually, big changes were made to perioperative antibiotics, mechanical bowel prep, preop shower routines, and intraoperative procedures. The efforts paid off (Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jan;61[1]:89-98).
To help surgeons lower their own infection rates, Dr. Gorgun agreed to an interview at the meeting to explain exactly what was done.
There was resistance at first from surgeons who wanted to stick with their routines, but they came around once they were shown the data backing the changes. Eventually, “everyone was on board. We believe in this,” Dr. Gorgun said.
BOSTON – driven mostly by a reduction in deep organ space infections from 5.5% to 1.7%.
It was a remarkable finding that got the attention of attendees at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. The Cleveland Clinic had been an outlier, in the wrong direction, compared with other centers, and administrators wanted a solution.
I. Emre Gorgun, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and quality improvement officer at Cleveland Clinic, led the search for evidence-based interventions. Eventually, big changes were made to perioperative antibiotics, mechanical bowel prep, preop shower routines, and intraoperative procedures. The efforts paid off (Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jan;61[1]:89-98).
To help surgeons lower their own infection rates, Dr. Gorgun agreed to an interview at the meeting to explain exactly what was done.
There was resistance at first from surgeons who wanted to stick with their routines, but they came around once they were shown the data backing the changes. Eventually, “everyone was on board. We believe in this,” Dr. Gorgun said.
REPORTING FROM THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
How, and when, to use fat grafting for scars
BOSTON – according to Benjamin Levi, MD, director of the burn/wound and regenerative medicine laboratory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Some corners of the Internet tout it as “some sort of magic stem cell surgery,” Dr. Levi said, but in reality, for scar surgeons, it’s just another useful tool in the armamentarium, one that excels at filling skin depressions due to underlying tissue loss, whether from burns, trauma, or surgery. Unlike hyaluronic acid and other options, fat grafts last; about half of injected adipocytes remain indefinitely. Fat grafting might also help soften scars, he said.
To get the most out of the procedure, of course, it has to be done correctly, so Dr. Levi took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to share his tips on harvesting and spinning down fat grafts, injecting adipocytes, and other matters. Although the concepts of fat grafting are straightforward, the techniques are a bit tricky. Dr. Levi hoped his treatment pearls would help other physicians, especially those considering adding fat grafting to their practice.
BOSTON – according to Benjamin Levi, MD, director of the burn/wound and regenerative medicine laboratory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Some corners of the Internet tout it as “some sort of magic stem cell surgery,” Dr. Levi said, but in reality, for scar surgeons, it’s just another useful tool in the armamentarium, one that excels at filling skin depressions due to underlying tissue loss, whether from burns, trauma, or surgery. Unlike hyaluronic acid and other options, fat grafts last; about half of injected adipocytes remain indefinitely. Fat grafting might also help soften scars, he said.
To get the most out of the procedure, of course, it has to be done correctly, so Dr. Levi took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to share his tips on harvesting and spinning down fat grafts, injecting adipocytes, and other matters. Although the concepts of fat grafting are straightforward, the techniques are a bit tricky. Dr. Levi hoped his treatment pearls would help other physicians, especially those considering adding fat grafting to their practice.
BOSTON – according to Benjamin Levi, MD, director of the burn/wound and regenerative medicine laboratory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Some corners of the Internet tout it as “some sort of magic stem cell surgery,” Dr. Levi said, but in reality, for scar surgeons, it’s just another useful tool in the armamentarium, one that excels at filling skin depressions due to underlying tissue loss, whether from burns, trauma, or surgery. Unlike hyaluronic acid and other options, fat grafts last; about half of injected adipocytes remain indefinitely. Fat grafting might also help soften scars, he said.
To get the most out of the procedure, of course, it has to be done correctly, so Dr. Levi took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to share his tips on harvesting and spinning down fat grafts, injecting adipocytes, and other matters. Although the concepts of fat grafting are straightforward, the techniques are a bit tricky. Dr. Levi hoped his treatment pearls would help other physicians, especially those considering adding fat grafting to their practice.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
PIONEER-HF secures place for sacubitril/valsartan in this heart failure doc’s practice
CHICAGO – Dr. Larry A. Allen will now have an easier time of treating hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure because of the results of the PIONEER-HF trial.
That study examined whether in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is safe and effective in ADHF, a treatment that hasn’t been studied well or taken up in clinical practice.
, showed comparable safety, and reduced composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left-ventricular implant device, and need for a transplant by 46%.
Dr. Allen, of the University of Colorado, Denver, was the designated discussant for the PIONEER-HF presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. In an interview, he explained how these results will change his practice as a heart failure specialist. “It simplifies things: I don’t have to start on an old therapy in the hospital, get the patients back in clinic, and switch the over to this newer therapy. I can just start from the beginning with the therapy that I think will be most effective.”
To find out why, watch the complete interview.
CHICAGO – Dr. Larry A. Allen will now have an easier time of treating hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure because of the results of the PIONEER-HF trial.
That study examined whether in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is safe and effective in ADHF, a treatment that hasn’t been studied well or taken up in clinical practice.
, showed comparable safety, and reduced composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left-ventricular implant device, and need for a transplant by 46%.
Dr. Allen, of the University of Colorado, Denver, was the designated discussant for the PIONEER-HF presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. In an interview, he explained how these results will change his practice as a heart failure specialist. “It simplifies things: I don’t have to start on an old therapy in the hospital, get the patients back in clinic, and switch the over to this newer therapy. I can just start from the beginning with the therapy that I think will be most effective.”
To find out why, watch the complete interview.
CHICAGO – Dr. Larry A. Allen will now have an easier time of treating hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure because of the results of the PIONEER-HF trial.
That study examined whether in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is safe and effective in ADHF, a treatment that hasn’t been studied well or taken up in clinical practice.
, showed comparable safety, and reduced composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left-ventricular implant device, and need for a transplant by 46%.
Dr. Allen, of the University of Colorado, Denver, was the designated discussant for the PIONEER-HF presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. In an interview, he explained how these results will change his practice as a heart failure specialist. “It simplifies things: I don’t have to start on an old therapy in the hospital, get the patients back in clinic, and switch the over to this newer therapy. I can just start from the beginning with the therapy that I think will be most effective.”
To find out why, watch the complete interview.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2018
United States must join with world to protect refugee children
ORLANDO – The United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet it does not always stand with the rest of the global community in promoting universally accepted principles on the health and well-being of children across the world, particularly refugee children, according to Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD.
In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rushton discussed the importance of seeing American exceptionalism for what it is – a flaw rather than a virtue – and joining with the rest of the world in upholding the tenets of the Budapest Declaration On the Rights, Health and Well-being of Children and Youth on the Move.
In the three-page Budapest document, created by the International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) in October 2017 and endorsed by the AAP, pediatricians from across the world acknowledge the realities of worldwide refugee crises and accept their detailed responsibilities in meeting and advocating for those children’s needs.
Although the current administration’s decision earlier this year to split children from their families at the border caught everyone attention, . He particularly stressed the “importance of working with the global community on clinical services, programs and policy.”
Dr. Rushton, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, also discussed the need to commit to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to join the global community in following the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the principles in the World Health Organization’s publication, “Nurturing care for early childhood development.”
The former is a “blueprint” to overcoming challenges related to “poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity and peace and justice” by achieving targets by 2030, and the latter is “a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential.”
“This is our issue as child health professionals. We need to continue applying pressure on our political leaders,” Dr. Rushton told his colleagues. He advocated taking the long view: “Let’s build a system that respects the human rights of all children.”
ORLANDO – The United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet it does not always stand with the rest of the global community in promoting universally accepted principles on the health and well-being of children across the world, particularly refugee children, according to Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD.
In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rushton discussed the importance of seeing American exceptionalism for what it is – a flaw rather than a virtue – and joining with the rest of the world in upholding the tenets of the Budapest Declaration On the Rights, Health and Well-being of Children and Youth on the Move.
In the three-page Budapest document, created by the International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) in October 2017 and endorsed by the AAP, pediatricians from across the world acknowledge the realities of worldwide refugee crises and accept their detailed responsibilities in meeting and advocating for those children’s needs.
Although the current administration’s decision earlier this year to split children from their families at the border caught everyone attention, . He particularly stressed the “importance of working with the global community on clinical services, programs and policy.”
Dr. Rushton, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, also discussed the need to commit to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to join the global community in following the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the principles in the World Health Organization’s publication, “Nurturing care for early childhood development.”
The former is a “blueprint” to overcoming challenges related to “poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity and peace and justice” by achieving targets by 2030, and the latter is “a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential.”
“This is our issue as child health professionals. We need to continue applying pressure on our political leaders,” Dr. Rushton told his colleagues. He advocated taking the long view: “Let’s build a system that respects the human rights of all children.”
ORLANDO – The United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet it does not always stand with the rest of the global community in promoting universally accepted principles on the health and well-being of children across the world, particularly refugee children, according to Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD.
In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rushton discussed the importance of seeing American exceptionalism for what it is – a flaw rather than a virtue – and joining with the rest of the world in upholding the tenets of the Budapest Declaration On the Rights, Health and Well-being of Children and Youth on the Move.
In the three-page Budapest document, created by the International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) in October 2017 and endorsed by the AAP, pediatricians from across the world acknowledge the realities of worldwide refugee crises and accept their detailed responsibilities in meeting and advocating for those children’s needs.
Although the current administration’s decision earlier this year to split children from their families at the border caught everyone attention, . He particularly stressed the “importance of working with the global community on clinical services, programs and policy.”
Dr. Rushton, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, also discussed the need to commit to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to join the global community in following the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the principles in the World Health Organization’s publication, “Nurturing care for early childhood development.”
The former is a “blueprint” to overcoming challenges related to “poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity and peace and justice” by achieving targets by 2030, and the latter is “a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential.”
“This is our issue as child health professionals. We need to continue applying pressure on our political leaders,” Dr. Rushton told his colleagues. He advocated taking the long view: “Let’s build a system that respects the human rights of all children.”
REPORTING FROM AAP 2018
Google Search Results for Diet and Psoriasis: Advice Patients Get on the Internet
Innovations in Dermatology: Sarecycline Approved for Acne
