Bilateral Cytomegalovirus Retinitis After Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy for B-cell Lymphoma.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis is commonly associated with immunosuppression and can cause irreversible vision loss. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has emerged as an effective cancer treatment option but requires immunosuppression, thereby increasing the possibility of acquiring opportunistic infections such as CMV. We present the case of a 76-year-old female with a history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus who initially presented with shortness of breath and was diagnosed with the activated B-cell subset of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). She received multiple cycles of chemotherapy and experienced relapses with cardiac involvement. The patient developed vision loss in the right eye and was diagnosed with bilateral posterior vitritis. She underwent various treatments, including radiotherapy, systemic chemotherapy, cataract extraction, and vitrectomy. After CAR-T therapy, she developed bilateral CMV retinitis, confirmed through polymerase chain reaction testing and managed by valganciclovir. Overall, this case report describes the first reported case of bilateral CMV retinitis following CAR-T therapy for DLBCL. It emphasizes the need for early recognition and treatment of CMV retinitis to prevent permanent vision loss. The report also underscores the importance of regular ocular screening and consideration of prophylactic measures in patients undergoing CAR-T therapy.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Long-term outcomes after lower extremity bypass in the actively smoking claudicant.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking is known to increase complications, including poor wound healing, coagulation abnormalities, and cardiac and pulmonary ramifications. Across specialties, elective surgical procedures are commonly denied to active smokers. Given the base population of active smokers with vascular disease, smoking cessation is encouraged but is not required the way it is for elective general surgery procedures. We aim to study the outcomes of elective lower extremity bypass (LEB) in actively smoking claudicants. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network LEB database from 2003 to 2019. In this database we found 609 (10.0%) never smokers (NS), 3388 (55.3%) former smokers (FS), and 2123 (34.7%) current smokers (CS) who underwent LEB for claudication. We performed two separate propensity score matches without replacement on 36 clinical variables (age, gender, race, ethnicity, obesity, insurance, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, previous coronary artery bypass graft, carotid endarterectomy, major amputation, inflow treatment, preoperative medications and treatment type), one of FS to NS and a second analysis of CS to FS. Primary outcomes included 5-year overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), freedom from reintervention (FR), and amputation-free survival (AFS). RESULTS: Propensity score matches resulted in 497 well-matched pairs of NS and FS. In this analysis we found no difference in terms of OS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.24; P = .61), LS (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63-1.82; P = .80), FR (HR, 0.9; 95% CI,0.71-1.21; P = .59), or AFS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI,0.71-1.22; P = .62). In the second analysis, we had 1451 well-matched pairs of CS and FS. There was no difference in LS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI,0.94-1.97; P = .11) or FR (HR, 1.02; 95% CI,0.88-1.19; P = .76). However, we did find a significant increase in OS (HR, 1.37; 95% CI,1.15-1.64, P <.001) and AFS (HR, 1.38; 95% CI,1.18-1.62; P < .001) in FS compared with CS. CONCLUSIONS: Claudicants represent a unique nonemergent vascular patient population that may require LEB. Our study found that FS have better OS and AFS when compared with CS. Additionally, FS mimic nonsmokers at 5-year outcomes for OS, LS, FR, and AFS. Therefore, structured smoking cessation should be a more prominent part of vascular office visits before elective LEB procedures in claudicants.