Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and clinical results of aortic valve replacement performed with minimally invasive closed circuit extracorporeal circulation technique (MECC system) versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: Forty consecutive patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement at a single institution were randomly assigned to either miniaturized closed circuit cardiopulmonary bypass with the Maquet-Cardiopulmonary (Rastatt, Germany) minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) system (study group B, n = 17) or standard cardiopulmonary bypass (control group A, n = 23). The MECC system is a low priming circuit without blood-air interface. Technical feasibility, in particular the potential entry of air in the circuit, and clinical results were prospectively evaluated. Results: Demographic characteristics and surgical data were similar in both groups. Patients in the study group showed reduced chest tube drainage (217 ± 62 mL vs 420 ± 219 mL, p < 0.05) and blood transfusion requirements (5.1% vs 43.4%, p < 0.02) compared with patients in the control group. Moreover, the study group showed significantly higher time course of hematocrit at all time points during the operation and longer hospital stay (p < 0.02) than the control group; similarly, in the study group patients’ platelet count in intensive care unit admission was significantly higher than the control group (140 ± 29 × 109/L vs 119 ± 37 × 109/L, p < 0.05). Peak postoperative troponin C release was significantly lower in the study group (4.74 ± 2.82 vs 8.43 ± 6.25 ng/dL, p < 0.033). One patient undergoing the MECC system operation showed a major neurologic event on postoperative day four, which was probably secondary to severe aortic calcification. Conclusions: The MECC system is suitable for aortic valve replacement and provides better clinical results than standard cardiopulmonary bypass as regards blood transfusion requirements, platelets consumption, and myocardial damage. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Histamine is thought to play a pivotal role in the modulation of peripheral and central pain. The administration of increasing doses of histamine may lead to desensitization of receptors of histamine types 1 and 2, causing meningeal vasodilation, and to depletion of neuropeptides in the trigeminal ganglion, thus inhibiting the initiation of migraine.Objective: In this study, the efficacy and tolerability of increasing doses of IV histamine in migraine prophylaxis were investigated.Methods: This single-center, open-label, retrospective, controlled study was conducted at the Headache Center (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florence, Villa Monna Tessa, Italy). Patients included in the study had 3 to 6 migraines without aura per month that were refractory to common symptomatic and prophylactic agents in the 6 months preceding the study. Patients were treated with IV histamine hydrochloride for 21 days starting with a dosage of 0.5 mg/d and increasing to 4.0 mg/d. To assess the efficacy of the treatment, these patients were matched for age; sex; and frequency, duration, and severity of attacks with untreated migraineurs. Clinical benefit was defined as ⩽ 1 migraine of mild intensity per month. Tolerability was assessed during the hospitalization period, and patients were instructed to contact the Headache Center to report any adverse effects after hospital discharge.Results: The histamine group comprised 47 patients (40 women, 7 men; mean [SD] age, 42.0 [8.6] years) and the control group comprised 23 patients (20 women, 3 men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [8.4] years). The histamine-treated patients showed a clinical benefit lasting for a mean of 10.4 (4.2) months, while the patients in the control group showed a clinical benefit of 3.8 (1.9) months. The difference in the duration of the clinical benefit between the 2 groups was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.15-7.99). Adverse effects consisted of flushing, heat sensation during infusion, headache, and palpitations.Conclusions: In this study, histamine showed lasting prophylactic efficacy in migraineurs. If further research confirms this preliminary finding, histamine could be considered when established prophylactic drugs, such as betablockers, calcium antagonists, antidepressants, and antiepileptics, have not been effective. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]