Background: The long-term complication rates of open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have not yet been determined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes and aortic reintervention rates between open repair and TEVAR in patients with descending thoracic aortic pathologies.Methods: Between January 2002 and December 2017, 230 patients with descending thoracic aortic pathologies underwent surgery. Of these, 136 patients were included in this retrospective study: 45 patients (10, 2, and 33 with dissection, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, and pseudoaneurysm, respectively) underwent open repair and 91 patients (27, 1, and 63 with dissection, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, and pseudoaneurysm, respectively) underwent TEVAR. The primary end points were in-hospital mortality, and short-term complications. The secondary end points were long-term mortality and reintervention rates. Based on the propensity score matching (PSM), 35 patients who underwent open repair were matched to 35 patients who underwent TEVAR (ratio = 1:1).Results: The mean follow-up period was 70.2 ± 51.9 months. Shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay were seen in the TEVAR group than in the open repair group before and after PSM (p < 0.001 andp < 0.001, respectively). However, in-hospital mortality, and spinal cord ischemia were not significantly different among the two groups (before PSM:p = 0.068 andp = 0.211, respectively; after PSM:p = 0.303 andp = 0.314, respectively). The cumulative all-cause death and aorta-related death showed no significant differences between the two groups (before PSM:p = 0.709 andp = 0.734, respectively; after PSM:p = 0.888 andp = 0.731, respectively). However, aortic reintervention rates were higher in the TEVAR group than in the open repair group before and after PSM (p = 0.006 andp = 0.013, respectively).Conclusion: The TEVAR group was superior in short-term recovery outcomes but had higher reintervention rates compared to the open repair group. However, there were no significant differences in long-term survival between the two groups.

Chae-Min Bae, M.D., Shin-Ah Son, M.D., Ph.D., Yong Jik Lee, M.D. Ph.D., Sang Cjeol Lee, M.D.. J Chest Surg -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.22.119

Background: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and shock index (SI) are accurate indicators of hemodynamic instability and the need for transfusion in trauma patients. We aimed to determine whether the utility and cutoff point for SBP and SI are affected by age and antihypertensives.Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of a level 1 trauma center between January 2017 and December 2018. We analyzed the utility and cutoff points of SBP and SI for predicting massive transfusion (MT) and 30-day mortality according to patients’ age and whether they were taking antihypertensives. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the association of age and antihypertensives on primary and secondary outcomes.Results: We analyzed 4681 trauma cases. There were 1949 patients aged 65 years or older (41.6%), and 1375 hypertensive patients (29.4%). MT was given to 137 patients (2.9%). The 30-day mortality rate was 6.3% (n = 294). In geriatric trauma patients taking antihypertensives, a prehospital SBP less than 110 mmHg was the cutoff value for predicting MT in multivariate logistic regression analyses; packed red blood cell transfusion volume decreased abruptly based on prehospital SBP of 110 mmHg. Emergency Department SI greater than 1.0 was the cutoff value for predicting MT in patients who were older than 65 years and were not taking antihypertensives.Conclusions: The triage of trauma patients is based on the identification of clinical features readily identifiable by first responders. However, age and medications may also affect the accurate evaluation. In initial trauma management, we must apply SBP and SI differently depending on age, whether a patient is taking antihypertensives, and the time at which the indicators are measured.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with several short-term benefits, including reduced morbidity and mortality; however, the long-term durability of TEVAR and the need for secondary aortic reintervention remain unclear. We aimed to determine the adverse outcomes, including aortic reintervention, after TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection. Between October 2009 and July 2016, 130 patients underwent TEVAR at Kyungpook National University Hospital. We excluded 35 patients with traumatic injury and included the remaining 95 patients in our study after TEVAR. The patients included in this study were categorized into 2 groups (reintervention [R] and nonintervention [N] groups) according to the need for reintervention. The mean follow-up period for all 95 patients was 22.4 (20.6) months. The overall actuarial survival rates were 83.7% (4.1%) and 63.6% (8.8%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from aortic reintervention after TEVAR were 94.0% (3.5%), 72.8% (8.2%), and 48.9% (10.5%) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The independent risk factors for aortic reintervention were endoleaks after TEVAR (odds ratio [OR] 6.13, P = .017), increase in aortic size by over 5% per year (OR 20.40, P = .001), and peripheral vascular occlusive disease (PVOD; OR 13.62, P = .007). Patients with preoperative hemoptysis tended to show a greater need for aortic reintervention (P = .059). Increase in aortic size by over 5% per year and PVOD were the primary risk factors for endoleaks (OR 3.82, P = .013 and OR 4.37, P = .021, respectively). Survival after TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathologies was satisfactory in most of the patients chosen as candidates for the procedure. However, the occurrence of endoleaks, increase in aortic size by over 5% per year, and PVOD were the primary causes of aortic reintervention.

Indolamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) is an intracellular enzyme that catalyzes amino acid tryptophan to L-kynurenine. IDO is overexpressed in various cancers and several IDO inhibitors have been assessed in multiple clinical trials. If an IDO inhibitor is to be commercialized, IDO immunohistochemistry will be an important method. In this study, 80% (28/35) of mature T- and natural killer (NK)-cell neoplasms showed positivity for IDO protein (score 1: five, score 2: one, score 3: seven, score 4: fifteen). In addition, 29.9% (23/77) of mature B-cell lymphomas showed positivity for IDO protein (score 1: three, score 2: tewelve, score 3: four, score 4: four). In mature B-cell lymphomas, 95.7% (22/23) of IDO positive cases were diffuse B-cell lymphomas. Our study includes various types of lymphoma that were previously unreported and shows various patterns of IDO stain according to the type. When the results are accumulated, IDO immunohistochemistry will be a useful tool to diagnose lymphomas and to predict their prognosis.