Search

Background: Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) often remains the only curative therapy for hematologic malignancies. Although the management of transplant‐associated adverse events considerably improved over the last decades, nonrelapse mortality (NRM) remains a challenge, and endothelial dysfunction was identified as a major contributor to NRM. Methods: Statin‐based endothelial prophylaxis (SEP) has been implemented in the standard of care in our transplant centre to reduce NRM caused by endothelial injury. Here, we retrospectively analysed the impact of SEP on clinical outcome in a cohort of 347 alloSCT patients. Results: SEP (n = 209) was associated with significantly reduced NRM (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.38–0.96) and better overall survival (OS) after acute graft‐versus‐host disease (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37–0.93). Subgroup analyses showed that the NRM benefit was mainly found in patients with an intermediate endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX), while relapse risk was not affected. On day 100 post‐alloSCT, patients receiving SEP had significantly higher levels of the rate‐limiting enzyme of tryptophan metabolism, indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase (IDO), higher kynurenine to tryptophan ratios as a proxy of IDO activity and tended to have lower levels of the endothelial injury marker ST2 (p =.055). No significant differences in interferon‐gamma or IL18 levels were observed. These biomarker signatures suggest that the beneficial effects of SEP might be mediated by both endothelial protection and immunomodulation. Conclusions: Together, these data suggest that SEP improves NRM and OS post‐alloSCT in particular in patients with intermediate endothelial risk and provide first mechanistic clues about its potential mode of action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) is a therapeutic option for severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with heart failure due to differential aetiologies. However, only little is known about the safety and efficacy of this procedure in patients with amyloid cardiomyopathy. Methods: Five patients with cardiac amyloidosis and moderate to severe or severe MR undergoing PMVR were analysed retrospectively and compared to seven patients with cardiac amyloidosis and severe MR without intervention. Clinical and functional data, renal function and cardiac biomarkers as well as established risk scores for cardiac amyloidosis were assessed. Primary endpoint was the reduction in MR one year after PMVR. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall mortality after 12 months compared with the control group, as well as changes in clinical and functional parameters. Results: Amyloidosis risk assessment documented amyloid cardiomyopathy at an advanced stage in all patients. Procedural, technical and device success of PMVR were all 100% and residual MR remained mild to moderate at 12 months follow‐up (P =.038 vs before PMVR). Differences in survival compared with the control (no PMVR) group pointed to a possible survival benefit in the PMVR group (P =.02). Conclusion: PMVR is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and might carry a possible survival benefit in this patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]