Incidence of Reoperation After Surgical Procedure for Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction in Children and Young Adults

BackgroundThe common causes of subaortic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and membranous/tunnel subaortic stenosis (SAS). Reoperation after corrective surgery may be due to recurrent disease, associated congenital defects, or complications of the initial procedure. This study compares the late outcomes of young patients with HCM and SAS.MethodsWe studied clinical, echocardiographic, and operative data of patients ≤21 years of age at the time of surgery for LVOTO between August 1963 and August 2018. We stratified patients into HCM (n = 152) and congenital SAS (n = 63) groups and compared survival and cumulative incidence of reoperation.ResultsAt initial repair, patients with HCM were older than patients with SAS (median [interquartile range] age, 15 [10-19] years vs 8 [5-13] years; P < .001), and patients with HCM were more symptomatic with dyspnea (P < .001), chest pain (P = .002), and presyncope/syncope (P = .005). Thirty-day mortality was 1.3% vs 0% for HCM and SAS groups. During a median follow-up of 13.1 years, survival was similar through the first 10 years; but during the second decade, patients with HCM had poorer survival (survival at 20 years, 80% vs 91% for patients with SAS; P = .007). Ten years after repair, reoperation for recurrent LVOTO was performed in 5% of patients with HCM vs 31% in those with SAS (P < .001).ConclusionsIn this surgical cohort, patients with HCM were more symptomatic preoperatively than those with SAS. Late survival of patients with SAS was superior to that of patients with HCM despite a greater need for reoperation.     

Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Danish Cohort Study

ObjectivesClinical trials have shown a beneficial effect from biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) on hand or axial bone loss in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; however, it is unclear if this translates to a reduced fracture risk. We investigated the effect of bDMARDs on osteoporotic fracture risk compared to no biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsA cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 18+ from DANBIO was linked to population-based health registries in Denmark (2006-2016). Adopting a prevalent new-user design, we matched bDMARD users to bDMARD-naïve patients using time-conditional propensity scores. The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures (including hip, vertebrae, humerus, and forearm) was estimated among the matched patients by Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsOut of 24,678 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 4265 bDMARD users were matched to the same number of bDMARD-naïve patients (mean age 56.2 years, 74% female). During follow-up, 229 osteoporotic fractures occurred among bDMARD users and 205 fractures among bDMARD-naïve patients (incidence rates 12.1 and 13.0 per 1000 person-years, respectively). The use of bDMARDs was not associated with a reduced risk of osteoporotic fractures among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.20), compared with no biological treatment. The risk estimates were similar for all osteoporotic fracture sites.ConclusionWe found no independent beneficial effect from using bDMARDs on reducing the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.