In SVG lesions, PES are associated with lower rates of angiographic restenosis and target vessel failure than BMS.

During long-term follow-up, use of PES was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes than BMS in SVG lesions. (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts Trial [SOS]; NCT00247208).

The subgroup of POTS patients who can tolerate oral pyridostigmine may demonstrate improvement in their standing HR, standing diastolic blood pressure, and clinical symptoms of orthostatic intolerance.

OBJECTIVESThere are conflicting views regarding the status of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) as a proper treatment for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). Our goal was to compare the early and late outcomes of VSRR versus those of the Bentall procedure in patients with AAAD.METHODSWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 studies to compare the outcomes of VSRR with those of the Bentall procedure in patients with AAAD. We focused on the following issues: early and late mortality rates, re-exploration, thromboembolization/bleeding events, infective endocarditis and reintervention rates.RESULTSA total of 706 patients with AAAD who underwent aortic root surgery were analysed; 254 patients were treated with VSRR and 452 with the Bentall procedure. VSRR was associated with a reduced risk of early death [odds ratio (OR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21–0.57] and late death (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21–0.57) compared with the Bentall procedure. No statistically significant difference was observed between the VSRR and Bentall groups with pooled ORs (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47–1.27, OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.32–1.18 and OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.23–2.15) for re-exploration, thromboembolization/bleeding and postoperative infective endocarditis, respectively. An increased risk of reintervention was observed for the VSRR compared to the Bentall group (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.27–11.30). The pooled rate of reintervention incidence was 1.6% (95% CI 0.0–3.7%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0.0–1.3%) for the VSRR and the Bentall groups, respectively.CONCLUSIONSVSRR in patients with AAAD can be performed in experienced centres with excellent short- and long-term outcomes compared to those with the Bentall procedure and thus should be recommended especially for active young patients.

No abstract

Background:We present our single center experience of 27 patients of hyperadrenergic postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Methods:In a retrospective analysis, we reviewed the charts of 300 POTS patients being followed at our autonomic center from 2003 to 2010, and found 27 patients eligible for inclusion in this study. POTS was defined as symptoms of orthostatic intolerance (of greater than six months' duration) accompanied by a heart rate increase of at least 30 bpm (or a rate that exceeds 120 bpm) that occurs in the first 10 min of upright posture or head up tilt test (HUTT) occurring in the absence of other chronic debilitating disorders. Patients were diagnosed as having the hyperadrenergic form based on an increase in their systolic blood pressure of ≥ 10 mm Hg during the HUTT (2) with concomitant tachycardia or their serum catecholamine levels (serum norepinephnrine level ≥ 600 pg/mL) upon standing. Results: Twenty seven patients, aged 39 ± 11 years, 24, (89%) of them female and 22 (82%)Caucasian were included in this study. Most of these patients were refractory to most of the first and second line treatments, and all were on multiple combinations of medications.Conclusions: Hyperadrenergic POTS should be identified and differentiated from neuropathic POTS. These patients are usually difficult to treat and there are no standardized treatment protocols known at this time for patients with hyperadrenergic POTS. (Cardiol J 2011; 18, 5: 527-531)

SVG failure after stenting often presents as acute myocardial infarction and with SVG occlusion. Compared with BMS, PES reduce SVG failure.

The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, n = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) as a justifiable alternative to an unsuccessful multimodality nonoperative option. Of patients who underwent amputation, 66% experienced improvement in quality of life (QOL) and 37% were able to use a prosthesis, 16% had an obvious decline in QOL and for 12% of patients, no clear details were given, although it was suggested by authors that these patients also encountered deterioration after amputation. Complications of phantom limb pain, recurrence of CRPS and stump pain were predominant risks and were noticed in 65%, 45% and 30% of cases after amputation, respectively and two-thirds of patients were satisfied. Amputation can be considered by clinicians and patients as an option to improve QOL and to relieve agonizing, excruciating pain of severe, resistant CRPS at a specialized centre after multidisclipinary involvement but it must be acknowledged that evidence is limited, and the there are risks of aggravating or recurrence of CRPS, phantom pain and unpredictable consequences of rehabilitation. Amputation, if considered for resistant CRPS, should be carried out at specialist centres and after MDT involvement before and after surgery. It should only be considered if requested by patients with poor quality of life who have failed to improve after multiple treatment modalities. Further high quality and comprehensive research is needed to understand the severe form of CRPS which behaves differently form less severe stages. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:533-540. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008