Association of pre-left ventricular assist device defibrillator shocks for ventricular arrhythmia with clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillation (ICD) shocks after left ventricular assist device therapy (LVAD) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Little is known about the association of pre-LVAD ICD shocks on post-LVAD clinical outcomes and whether LVAD therapy affects the prevalence of ICD shocks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pre-LVAD ICD shocks are associated with adverse clinical outcomes post-LVAD and to compare the prevalence of ICD shocks before and after LVAD therapy. Methods: Patients 18 years or older with continuous-flow LVADs and ICDs were retrospectively identified within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system from 2006-2020. We analyzed the association between appropriate ICD shocks within 1 year pre-LVAD with a primary composite outcome of death, stroke, and pump thrombosis and secondary outcomes of post-LVAD ICD shocks and ICD shock hospitalizations. Results: Among 309 individuals, average age was 57 ± 12 years, 87% were male, 80% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 42% were bridge to transplantation. Seventy-one patients (23%) experienced pre-LVAD shocks, and 69 (22%) experienced post-LVAD shocks. The overall prevalence of shocks pre-LVAD and post-LVAD were not different. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were not associated with the composite outcome. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were found to predict post-LVAD shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 5.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-9.48; P <.0001) and hospitalizations related to ICD shocks from ventricular arrhythmia (HR 10.34; 95% CI 4.1-25.7; P <.0001). Conclusion: Pre-LVAD ICD shocks predicted post-LVAD ICD shocks and hospitalizations but were not associated with the composite outcome of death, pump thrombosis, or stroke at 1 year. The prevalence of appropriate ICD shocks was similar before and after LVAD implantation in the entire cohort.

Comparison of Osteoporosis Pharmacotherapy Fracture Rates: Analysis of a MarketScan® Claims Database Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Several different classes of medications have been shown to be efficacious at preventing fractures in patients with osteoporosis. No study has compared real world efficacy at preventing fractures between all currently approved medications. OBJECTIVES: To directly compare the efficacy of all currently available osteoporosis medications by using a large population claims database. METHODS: The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® database from 2008 - 2012 was used to identify all patients who started a new osteoporosis medication. Patients who experienced a fracture after at least 12 months of treatment were identified and risk factors for fracture for all patients were recorded. Logistic regression was used to account for and quantify the contribution of risk factors, and to make direct comparisons between different osteoporosis medications. RESULTS: A total of 51649 patients were included in the cohort, with an average age of 56 years. The overall incidence rate of fracture was 1.55 per 100 person - years of treatment. Orally administered medications had the lowest fracture rates, led by raloxifene and alendronate (1.24 and 1.54 respectively), while parenterally administered medications including teriparatide and zolerdonic acid had the highest rates (3.90 and 1.98 respectively). No statistically significant differences found between oral or parenterally administered bisphosphonate medications. CONCLUSIONS: While patients taking orally administered drugs including bisphosphonates had less frequent incident fracture no statistically significant differences were found between most drugs in head - to - head comparisons, even considering the route of administration of bisphosphonates. These findings support previous evidence that minimal differences in efficacy exist between different osteoporosis medications. This is the first study using a large database to compare all currently available osteoporosis treatments and will hopefully be augmented by further study to provide more evidence to make clinical decisions on osteoporosis medication use.

Prognostic outlier genes for enhanced prostate cancer treatment.

AIM: To review the current landscape of outlier genes in the field of prostate cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive review was performed. RESULTS: Prostate cancer continues to be a significant worldwide health issue. In the era of personalized medicine, more emphasis is being placed on the ability to determine the timing, intensity and type of treatment, according to each patient's unique disease. Several commercial tests are available to determine the risk of aggressive prostate cancer based on genomic biomarkers and gene expression. Outlier genes represent a form of cancer classification that focuses on bimodal expression of a gene in a specific subset of patients. Outlier genes identified in prostate cancer include TMPRSS2-ERG, SPINK1, ScHLAP1, NVL, SMC4 and SQLE. CONCLUSION: Classifying patient prostate cancers by outlier genes may allow for individualized cancer therapies and improved cancer therapy outcomes.

Modeled risk of ischemic heart disease following left breast irradiation with deep inspiration breath hold.

PURPOSE: Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) dramatically reduces radiation dose to the heart during radiation therapy (RT) for left-sided breast cancer, but the subsequent risk of radiation-related ischemic heart disease (IHD) is unknown. Our primary objective was to quantify the risk of IHD following RT with DIBH using modeled risk estimates (MRE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage 0-III left-sided breast cancer who received RT with DIBH were retrospectively studied. Computed tomography simulations were performed with DIBH and during free breathing (FB) for comparison of dosimetry. Patients were classified as high risk, at risk, or at optimal risk for IHD and baseline risk estimates for IHD were obtained from historic controls. The excess relative risk of IHD because of left breast RT was calculated using patient-specific dosimetry and an existing dose-effect model. MRE were determined from the sum of baseline risk estimates and excess risk. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2011, 111 patients were treated using DIBH and 104 were available for analysis. MRE for 10-year risk of IHD with DIBH and FB were 3.25% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.20-3.44) and 3.64% (IQR, 1.43-3.81) (P < .0001), respectively. MRE for lifetime risk of IHD with DIBH and FB were 9.71% (IQR, 1.98-16.62) and 10.28% (IQR, 2.05-16.97) (P < .0001), respectively. MRE were significantly reduced by use of DIBH in all risk groups. The largest absolute risk reduction resulting from the DIBH technique was observed in patients at high risk for IHD. The median relative risk reduction in MRE resulting from DIBH was 11.4% (range, 0-32.0) and 6.4% (range, 0-23.4) at 10 years and throughout the patients' lifetime, respectively. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (range, 1.3-11.2), the estimated 10-year freedom from IHD was 99.0% (95% confidence interval 93.4-99.8). CONCLUSIONS: RT with DIBH may provide breast cancer survivors a clinically significant reduction in the risk of IHD.