BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

Early colonoscopy in patients with acute diverticulitis may alter the working diagnosis and be of therapeutic value. The rate of cecal intubation is lower and the perforation rate appears to be higher. A clear-cut indication therefore has to be evident clinically.

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )

There is a distinct difference in the surgical skills of residents according to level of seniority, as primarily reflected by operating time. Laparoscopic appendectomy requires longer time to perform in a teaching setting, but the most deterministic factor that dictates operating time is the composition of the surgical team rather than the laparoscopic approach.

Preperitoneal Bupivacaine attenuates pain following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and should be considered in these cases.

Background The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between time in therapeutic range (TTR) and clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients in sinus rhythm (SR) treated with warfarin. Methods and Results We used data from the Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction Trial (WARCEF) to assess the relationship of TTR with the WARCEF primary outcome (ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death); with death alone; ischemic stroke alone; major hemorrhage alone; and net clinical benefit (primary outcome and major hemorrhage combined). Multivariable Cox models were used to examine how the event risk changed with TTR and to compare the high TTR, low TTR, and aspirin patients, with TTR being treated as a time-dependent covariate. 2,217 patients were included in the analyses, among whom 1,067 were randomized to warfarin and 1,150 were randomized to aspirin. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 3.6 (2.0–5.0) years. Mean (±SD) age was 61±11.3 years, with 80% being men. The mean (±SD) TTR was 57% (±28.5%). Increasing TTR was significantly associated with reduction in primary outcome (adjusted p<0.001), death alone (adjusted p=0.001), and improved net clinical benefit (adjusted p<0.001). A similar trend was observed for the other two outcomes but significance was not reached (adjusted p=0.082 for ischemic stroke, adjusted p=0.109 for major hemorrhage). Conclusions In HF patients in SR, increasing TTR is associated with better outcome and improved net clinical benefit. Patients in whom good quality anticoagulation can be achieved may benefit from the use of anticoagulants. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00041938.

individualized follow-up protocol by evaluating patients' follow-up images and comparing reintervention-free survival and rupture rate according to the findings.Methods: Between 2000 and 2010, there were 282 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent elective EVAR. Patients were annually followed up to March 2017. In the beginning of the study, patients were observed annually with computed tomography angiography (CTA). Since 2005, the follow-up protocol changed into annual color duplex ultrasound examination. However, CTA was still performed at 2 years after the primary procedure. All control CTA and color duplex ultrasound examinations were reanalyzed, and patients were categorized into groups according to the presence of any endoleak or sac shrinkage of $5 mm. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to identify reintervention-free survival for each group.Results: The median follow-up for the cohort was 78 months (range, 0-201 months), and overall survival at 2 years was 84% (n ¼ 237). Imaging data at 2 years were available for 219 (92%) patients. After the 2-year cutoff point, complication was detected in 21% (n ¼ 45) of patients, the most common being endoleak (13%). Altogether, 19% (n ¼ 45) of the patients still under surveillance required secondary procedures after 2 years. Among patients without detectable endoleak and documented decrease in the maximum aneurysm sac size of $5 mm (n ¼ 137 [63%]) at 2 years, the reintervention-free survival was 95% at 12 years. The figure was 31% among those with either endoleak or no significant sac shrinkage (log-rank, P < .001). Furthermore, there were significantly more late ruptures among those with an endoleak or no detectable sac shrinkage at 2 years compared with their counterparts (eight vs one; P ¼ .005).Conclusions: Patients without endoleak and decrease in the aneurysm sac size $5 mm at 2 years have significantly fewer late reinterventions and ruptures during the long-term follow-up than their counterparts. This finding suggests that in these patients, the follow-up interval can be safely prolonged.

No abstract