Archive for: 2010

Posted below is a copy of the suggested ASR™ Hip Implant Recall Letter for surgeons to send to their patients from the DePuy Division of Johnson & Johnson:


August xx, 2010

Dear ______,

I am writing to share important information about your hip replacement implant, the DePuy ASR Hip System. A small number of patients with the hip implant you received have experienced problems that require additional care and potentially further treatment. For this reason, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., the maker of your hip, has advised me that they are recalling the ASR Hip System and recommending that patients be evaluated.

Please call my office to schedule an appointment for the evaluation of your hip. During that appointment, I would like to discuss with you any symptoms/problems you are having, additionaI testing that has been recommended and the best plan for ongoing testing and treatment for you. DePuy will pay for the examination and any medical follow up as described in the attached DePuy ASR™ Hip Implant Recall – Information for Patients Sheet.

The Information for Patients Sheet, provided by DePuy, will help to address any questions you may have about your hip implant, the reason it is being recalled and what you need to do. If you have any questions regarding the performance of your hip implant, please contact my office. If you have questions about payment for treatment, please contact DePuy using the phone number included in the Information for Patients Sheet.

Also included with this letter is a Medical Release Form. Your completion of this form allows me to share information regarding your hip with DePuy. It is important to share this information with DePuy so that DePuy may contact you directly regarding any additional information regarding the ASR Hip System and process your claims efficiently. Please complete the form and bring it with you to your next appointment.

Once again, please contact my office as soon as possible to set up a follow up appointment so that I may address your concerns and discuss the best treatment options for you.

Sincerely,

******************************************

DePuy Hip Implant Attorney

If you or a loved one have been injured as the result of a DePuy Orthopaedics – Johnson & Johnson  hip replacement implant product, talk to a DePuy Hip Implant Attorney at the Willis Law Firm for legal advice about a potential DePuy hip replacement lawsuit.  Please fill out the Free Case Evaluation at the right or call us toll-free at 1-800-883-9858.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are required to have a revision replacement surgery to remove and replace a faulty DePuy Hip Implant, notify your doctors that you want the hip implant to be preserved as evidence and NOT shipped or returned to the manufacturer, as it is critical evidence in a potential product liability lawsuit against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

DePuy Hip Implant Lawsuits

DePuy Hip ImplantOn August 26, 2010 the DePuy Orthopaedics division of Johnson & Johnson, issued a recall for its two hip replacement products, the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System. Following two years of more than 400 documented complaints from patients and their surgeons, DePuy Orthopaedics pulled both ASR systems from Australia in 2009 but not until 2010 in the US. DePuy Orthopedics initially announced in March 2009 its plan to phase out sales of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System worldwide, but not before the ASR had been implanted in thousands of patients.

A number of orthopedic doctors believe the DePuy metal on metal implant had a design flaw that made it difficult to implant properly, specifically that the component has a narrow window for proper implantation. The design of the cup on the ASR is more shallow than other devices, which is believed to be one of the implant’s main problems. The ASR XL Acetabular System is a hip socket used in traditional hip replacement. The ASR Hip Resurfacing System is a partial hip replacement that involves placing a metal cap on the ball of the femur, to preserve a greater amount of bone. Both of these systems are metal-to-metal bearing type hips replacement systems.

DePuy Hip Implant Information

For additional hip implant information:

FDA DePuy Statistics

According the FDA, it has received approximately 400 complaints that involve patients who had had the devices implanted starting in 2008. Approximately 12% – 13% of patients subsequently needed a second hip replacement procedure within five years of receiving the ASR implant, according to DePuy. In some cases, the DePuy ASR implant was documented to fail within the first 1-2 years of the implantation. DePuy said that it made the decision to withdraw the products because too many patients required a second hip replacement after the company’s implants had failed. When the DePuy hip implants fail, often the hip implant patients need additional costly and painful hip replacement “revision” surgeries to remove and replace the faulty implant.

DePuy Hip Implant Side Effects

Approximately 250,000 people in the US receive hip replacement implants each year, with about one-third of those receiving metal-on-metal implants. It has been documented that patients implanted with metal-on-metal bearing type hip replacement systems like the DePuy ASR have developed Aseptic Lymphocyte Dominated Vasculitis Associated Lesion (ALVAL). ALVAL is an adverse tissue reaction to metal particles and ions, and may be the result of a toxic reaction to metal wear debris in the area of the DePuy hip implant. It has been documented that metal-to-metal bearing type hip replacement systems like the DePuy ASR can generate large amounts of metal debris during normal wear and tear, which can negatively impact soft tissue and evolve into serious health issues for patients.

Concerned patients should request their surgery records from the hospital ‘s medical records department to find out if a DePuy ASR hip implant was used in their hip replacement surgery.

DePuy Hip Implant Attorney

If you or a loved one have been injured as the result of a DePuy Orthopaedics – Johnson & Johnson hip replacement implant product, talk to a DePuy Hip Implant Attorney at the Willis Law Firm for legal advice about a potential DePuy hip replacement lawsuit. Please fill out the Free Case Evaluation at the right or call us toll-free at 1-800-883-9858.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are required to have a revision replacement surgery to remove and replace a faulty DePuy Hip Implant, notify your doctors that you want the hip implant to be preserved as evidence and NOT shipped or returned to the manufacturer, as it is critical evidence in a potential product liability lawsuit against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

Posted below is a copy of the letter from the DePuy Division of Johnson & Johnson to patients, related to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System recall:


ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System Recall

Information for Patients

DePuy makes patient safety and health a top priority and is continually evaluating data about its products. Most ASR hip replacement surgeries have been successful. However, data recently received by the company shows that more people than expected who received the ASR hip experienced pain and other symptoms that led to a second hip replacement surgery, called a revision surgery.

For this reason, DePuy Orthopaedics is recalling its ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System. This recall means additional testing and monitoring may be necessary to ensure your hip implant is functioning well. In some cases patients may need additional surgery.

New data shows that five years after implantation, approximately 12% of patients or, 1 in 8, who had received the ASR resurfacing device and 13% of patients, or 1 in 8, who had received the ASR total hip replacement needed to have a revision surgery.

If you have received an ASR Hip Replacement or ASR Hip Resurfacing System, both of which will be referred to as your hip implant, the following information will help you understand what this recall means to you and the steps you should take.

What happens to the ASR implant and what symptoms should I watch for?

The patients who reported problems in the first five years and had revision surgery reported a variety of symptoms. These symptoms included pain, swelling and problems walking. These symptoms are normal if you have just had a hip replacement. But if the symptoms continue or come back, it is a sign that there may be a problem such as:

  • Loosening, when the implant does not stay attached to the bone in the right position
  • Fracture, where the bone around the implant may have broken; and
  • Dislocation where the two parts of the implant that move against each other are no longer aligned.

Your hip implant is made up of ball and socket components that move against each other. These components are made of metal that wears over time and generates very small particles that can only be seen with a microscope. This is an expected process. Different people respond to the particles in different ways. A small number of patients may react to these particles, causing fluid to collect in the joint and in the muscles around the joint. While this condition may initially be painless, if left untreated, this reaction may cause pain and swelling around the joint and could damage some of the muscles, bones, and nerves around the hip.

There are tests that will help your surgeon determine if your hip is working as it should and if you are having a reaction to the metal particles. Your surgeon may take x-rays of your hip. Also, a blood test can be done to indicate the level of microscopic metal particles around your hip. Your surgeon may also use an ultrasound or MRI to evaluate if you are having a reaction to the metal particles.

What does the recall mean for me?

Please contact the surgeon who performed your hip implant to determine if you received the ASR System. Most people with ASR hip implants do not experience problems. However, it is important that you follow up with your surgeon on a annual basis for the first 5 years after your ASR hip surgery – even if you are not experiencing symptoms – to ensure that your hip continues to work well. In some cases, your surgeon may order additional blood testing or imaging to evaluate how your hip is functioning. Your surgeon will determine the best monitoring plan for you and discuss treatment solutions should they be needed.

If you don’t know who performed your hip replacement surgery, ask your primary care physician or the hospital where the surgery took place.

DePuy Can Help: If you are unable to determine the type of hip implant you received, we can help. Please fill out the release form available on www.DePuy.com.

U.S. patients should mail a completed form to DePuy Orthopaedics, Customer Quality Department, PO Box 988, 700 Orthopaedic Drive, Warsaw, IN 46581.

Patients outside of the U.S. should mail a completed form to DePuy International Limited, Complaints and Vigilance Department., St. Anthony’s Road, Leeds, LS11 8DT. This will allow DePuy to contact your surgeon or hospital on your behalf.

If you received the ASR™ XL Acetabular System or DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, you should take the following steps:

Schedule an appointment with your surgeon. Your surgeon will be able to evaluate how your ASR hip is functioning.

If you are experiencing pain, difficulty walking, or other symptoms, your surgeon may want to take x-rays of your hip. X-rays will allow your surgeon to evaluate how the ASR hip is positioned, if there is any damage to the bone and if the ASR hip has remained attached to the bone. If the x-rays show problems with your ASR hip, your surgeon may recommend surgery to replace it.

In some cases, your surgeon may order additional blood testing or imaging to ensure your ASR hip is functioning well.

The evaluation may include a blood test that indicates the level of microscopic metal particles around your hip. If the blood test indicates a high level of these particles, your surgeon may want to do a second blood test three months later. These levels may be high even if you are not experiencing any symptoms, so this blood testing is very important.

If the second blood test still indicates a high level of these particles, your surgeon may want to do an MRI or ultrasound test of your ASR hip. If such tests show a reaction to the particles, your surgeon may recommend surgery to replace your implant. This is a decision that you and your surgeon need to discuss based on your own personal health needs.

If you do not have any symptoms or test results that suggest you may need to have your implant replaced, then you should follow your surgeon’s recommendations for continued follow-up.

If you do need to have an additional surgery, several options are available and your surgeon will select the appropriate implant system for you.

Who will pay for my testing and treatment?

Your safety and health is important to DePuy and we do not want cost to be a barrier to treatment. DePuy intends to cover reasonable and customary costs of testing and treatment if you need services, including revision surgery, associated with the recall of ASR. Bills for services should first be submitted to your insurance company or Medicare in the usual manner and DePuy will then reimburse you for your out of pocket expenses. Detailed information about the reimbursement process will be available shortly. Please visit our web site at www.depuy.com or call the ASR Help Line at the number below.

Who can I speak with?

We recommend contacting your orthopaedic surgeon directly.

DePuy Can Help:

Additional questions? We are here to help. Do not hesitate to call the DePuy ASR Help Line beginning August 27, 2010.

Patients in the U.S. and Canada: Callers from the U.S. and Canada should dial the toll-free number 888-627-2677. The U.S. and Canada call center will be active from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST, Monday through Saturday.

Patients outside of the U.S.

Please secure an operator and instruct them that you need to place a collect call to the United States at 813-287-1651. The operator will make the connection and transfer you to a representative who will greet you in English. Please respond in your preferred language to the representative. You will be transferred to a translator who speaks your language. The transfer to the translator may take up to two minutes. DePuy appreciates your patience while the call is being transferred. The OUS call center will be active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

******************************************

DePuy Hip Implant Attorney

If you or a loved one have been injured as the result of a DePuy Orthopaedics – Johnson & Johnson  hip replacement implant product, talk to a DePuy Hip Implant Attorney at the Willis Law Firm for legal advice about a potential DePuy hip replacement lawsuit.  Please fill out the Free Case Evaluation at the right or call us toll-free at 1-800-883-9858.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are required to have a revision replacement surgery to remove and replace a faulty DePuy Hip Implant, notify your doctors that you want the hip implant to be preserved as evidence and NOT shipped or returned to the manufacturer, as it is critical evidence in a potential product liability lawsuit against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

US FDA

Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations

Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. 8/19/10

US HHSDepartment of Health and Human Services
Public Health ServiceFood and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993

WARNING LETTER

August 19, 2010

David Floyd
President
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
700 Orthopaedic Drive
Warsaw, Indiana 46582

RE: TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System
Corail® Hip System
Refer to GEN0901195 when replying to this letter.

Dear Mr. Floyd:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has learned that your firm is marketing the TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System and the Corail® Hip System in the United States (U.S.) without the required marketing clearance or approval, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

The Office of Compliance (OC) in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reviewed your website, www.depuyorthopaedics.com for the TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System and the Corail® Hip System. The products are devices within the meaning of section 201(h) of the Act 21 U.S.C. § 321(h), because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or is intended to affect the structure or function of the body. The Act requires that manufacturers of devices that are not exempt obtain marketing approval or clearance for their products from the FDA before they may offer them for sale. This helps protect the public health by ensuring that new devices are shown to be both safe and effective or substantially equivalent to other devices already legally marketed in this country for which approval is not required.

TruMatch™

A review of our records reveals that you have not obtained marketing approval or clearance before you began offering the TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System for sale, which is a violation of the law. Specifically, the TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System is adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B), because you do not have an approved application for premarket approval (PMA) in effect pursuant to section 515(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360e(a), or an approved application for investigational device exemptions (IDE) under section 520(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360j(g). The device is also misbranded under section 502(o) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(o), because you did not notify the agency of your intent to introduce the device into commercial distribution. as required by section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360(k). For a device requiring premarket approval, the notification required by section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360(k), is deemed satisfied when a PMA is pending before the agency. 21 C.F.R. 807.81(b). The kind of information you need to submit in order to obtain approval or clearance for your device is described on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3122.html. The FDA will evaluate the information you submit and decide whether your product may be legally marketed.

Corail® Hip System

A review of our records indicates that we cleared a premarket notification (510(k)) for the Corail® Hip System, K042992, with an intended use for total hip arthroplasty “to provide increased patient mobility and reduce pain by replacing the damaged hip joint articulation in patients where there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.” In addition, total hip replacement is indicated in the following conditions:

  1. A severely painful and/or disabled joint from osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
  2. Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
  3. Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
  4. Failed previous hip surgery including joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.
  5. Certain cases of ankylosis.

The non·porous Corail AMT Hip Stem is indicated for cementless use only.

However, a brochure on your website,

http://www.depuyorthopaedics.com/HealthCare/Related%20Documents/HIPS/CEMETL

ESS%20STEMS/CORAIL%20AMT/DO Corail_AMT_ Design Rationale_ 0612-70-501r2.pdf, states the following claims about the Corail® Hip System:

  • “Proprietary HA coating for initial osteointegration and fixation” (page 3);
  • “Proprietary HA coating … clinically demonstrated rapid trabeculae formation leading to rapid fixation,” and “promotes osteointegration for excellent fixation” (page 4);

Promotion of this device for osseointegration (a.k.a. osteointegration), whether explicitly or implicitly (for example, through fixation claims that imply osseointegration). represent a major change or modification in the intended use of your device that require a new premarket notification. 21 CFR 807.81(a)(3)(ii). Because of these claims, the Corail® Hip System is adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B), because you do not have an approved application for premarket approval (PMA) in effect pursuant to section 515(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360e(a), or an approved application for an investigational device exemption (IDE) under section 520(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360j(g). The device is also misbranded under section, 502(o) of the Act, 21.U.S.C. 352(o), because you did not submit to FDA a notification respecting the changes to the intended use of the device, as required by section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360(k), and 21 CFR 807.81(a)(3)(ii).

FDA requests that DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. immediately cease marketing the Corail® Hip System for unapproved uses such as those described above. You should take prompt action to correct the violations listed in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the Food and Drug Administration without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to seizure, injunction, and lor civil money penalties.

Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations for the TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System and the Corail® Hip System, including an explanation of how you plan to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrective action you have taken. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which the corrections will be completed. Please include in your response a list all promotional materials for the Corail® Hip System containing claims for unapproved uses such as those described above, and explain your plan for discontinuing such claims.

Your response should be sent to:

Matthew Krueger
Chief
Orthopedic and Physical Medicine Devices Branch
Office of Compliance
Center for Devices and
Radiological Health
WO 66, Room 3676
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002

If you have any questions about the content of this letter please contact: Amy Skrzypchak at phone number (301) 796-5613 or amy.skrzypchak@fda.hhs.gov.

Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations by your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. You should investigate and determine the causes of the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations, and to bring your products into compliance.

Sincerely,

/s/

Timothy A. Ulatowski
Director
Office of Compliance
Center for Devices and
Radiological Health

******************************************

DePuy Hip Implant Attorney

If you or a loved one have been injured as the result of a DePuy Orthopaedics – Johnson & Johnson  hip replacement implant product, talk to a DePuy Hip Implant Attorney at the Willis Law Firm for legal advice about a potential DePuy hip replacement lawsuit.  Please fill out the Free Case Evaluation at the right or call us toll-free at 1-800-883-9858.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are required to have a revision replacement surgery to remove and replace a faulty DePuy Hip Implant, notify your doctors that you want the hip implant to be preserved as evidence and NOT shipped or returned to the manufacturer, as it is critical evidence in a potential product liability lawsuit against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

Description of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a rare, sometimes life-threatening unless properly treated, immunological disorder of the skin. It causes large portions of the epidermis, the skin’s outermost layer, to detach from the layers of skin below. TEN typically begins with fever, cough, and other nonspecific symptoms, and is soon followed by purplish, bloody-looking lesions on the skin and mucous membranes. These early lesions, typically found on the head, neck, and upper chest, soon merge and blister. Sheets of epidermis then begin to detach from the skin layers below. In time, the entire surface of the skin may be involved, with detachment of 100% of the epidermis. Onset can occur at any age. The infantile form frequently follows an infection. In adults the disorder is usually caused by a reaction to taking a pharmaceutical drug, especially anticonvulsants, non-steroid anti-inflammatories, and/or some antibiotics. TEN is thought to be one of a family of three skin disorders. TEN is considered to be the more serious, followed by Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and erythema multiforme, in order of severity of disease.

Symptoms of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis is characterized by blisters that meld into one another to cover a substantial portion of the body (30% and more), and extensive peeling or sloughing off of skin (exfoliation and denudation). The exposed under layer of skin (dermis) is red and suggests severe scalding. Often, the mucous membranes become involved, especially around the eyes (conjunctivitis), but also the mouth, throat, and bronchial tree. Other symptoms include unnexplained widespread skin pain, facial swelling, hives, tongue swelling, and red or purple skin rashes. About 25-30% of patients with TEN die. Elderly patients, those with extensive skin lesions, and those with AIDS have the worst prognosis. Widespread systemic infection (sepsis) is the primary cause of death.

Causes of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

The main cause of TEN is a severe drug reaction. Some investigators believe there may be additional infectious causes. One study reported more than 100 different drugs as causes of TEN. The drugs most commonly implicated, however, include anticonvulsants like phenytoin (Dilantin), antibacterials, and antibiotics. Exactly what leads to detachment of the epidermis remains unclear. People with TEN seem to have difficulty metabolizing the offending drug. Some researchers suggest that certain substances that should be cleared from the body instead get deposited on the outer shell of the epidermis, causing an immune response that leads the body to “reject” the skin.

Complications Related to Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Secondary skin infection (cellulitis): Secondary skin infections caused by Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis can lead to other life-threatening complications, including meningitis — an infection of the fluid and membranesurrounding the brain and spinal cord.

Sepsis: Sepsis occurs when bacteria from a massive infection enter the bloodstream and spread throughout the body. Sepsis is a rapidly progressing, life-threatening condition that can cause shock, organ failure, and death.

Eye problems: The rash caused by Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis can lead to inflammation of the eyes. In mild cases, it may cause irritation and dry eyes, while in more severe cases, it can lead to extensive tissue damage and scarring within the eyes resulting in blindness.

Damage to internal organs: Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis can cause lesions on internal organs, which can result in inflammation of lungs (pneumonitis), heart (myocarditis), kidney (nephritis) and liver (hepatitis).

Permanent skin damage: When a patient’s skin regrows following Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, it may have abnormal bumps and discoloration (pigmentation). Scars may remain on the skin as well. Permanent skin problems may cause hair to fall out and to not regrow. Fingernails and toenails may also not grow normally, following Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis.

Tests and Diagnosis of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Diagnosis is made primarily on the appearance and spread of the skin lesions, and on a history that includes introduction of a new medication within the previous one to three weeks. A biopsy of the early lesions will confirm the diagnosis. Physicians will consider other potential diseases that cause similar symptoms before reaching a diagnosis of TEN. One is erythema multiforme, a recurrent skin disorder that produces lesions similar in appearance to TEN. However, this disorder is not caused by a drug reaction and does not lead to sheet-like shedding of the skin. Another disease, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, is another drug-induced skin disease that some experts believe is really a milder form of TEN.

Treatment of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

There is no specific treatment for TEN. Patients are typically treated in an intensive care unit or in a burn unit and receive treatment similar to that given to patients with major burns. With the loss of skin, severe dehydration is a major risk, so health care workers will attempt to replace fluids intravenously. Nutritional supplementation from a tube routed through the nose to the stomach may also be contemplated to promote the healing of the skin. Infection is a major risk, so some physicians “paint” the open lesions with topical antiseptics. Others use skin grafts taken from cadavers or cultured skin substitutes to cover large open areas until healing can occur. Medications used to treat Stevens-Johnson Syndrome include: pain medication to reduce discomfort, antihistamines to relieve itching, antibiotics to control infection, topical steroids to reduce skin inflammation, intravenous corticosteroids to lessen the severity of symptoms and shorten recovery time, and immunoglobulin intravenous (IGIV) containing antibodies to help the immune system halt the process of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Since some of these medications have also been implicated as a potential cause in some cases of TEN and are known to supress the immune system, their use should be considered carefully.

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Synonyms

  • Acute Toxic Epidermolysis
  • Dermatitis Exfoliativa
  • Lyell Syndrome
  • Ritter Disease
  • Ritter-Lyell Syndrome
  • Scalded Skin Syndrome
  • Staphyloccal Scalded Skin Syndrome
  • TEN
  • Lyelles Syndrome

Speak to a Dilantin Lawyer

If you took Dilantin and suffered Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), we encourage you to contact a Dilantin attorney at our law firm immediately. An experienced product liability attorney can assist you in a legal action against the makers of Dilantin. Contact our law firm and learn more about your legal rights and the options available to you and your family.

Description of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS)

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is a somewhat rare but serious disorder in which the skin and mucous membranes react severely to medications and/or infection. It is an emergency medical condition that usually requires hospitalization. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome may begin with flu-like symptoms, which are then followed by a red or purplish painful rash that spreads, blisters and eventually causes the top layers of skin to die and shed. Treatment focuses on eliminating the underlying cause, controlling symptoms and minimizing complications. Recovery after Stevens-Johnson Syndrome can take weeks to months, depending on severity. If a doctor determines that Stevens-Johnson Syndrome was caused by medication, the patient will need to permanently avoid that medication and all others related to it.

Symptoms of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS)

  • Unexplained widespread skin pain
  • Facial swelling
  • Blisters on skin and mucous membrane
  • Hives
  • Tongue swelling
  • Shedding of the skin
  • Red or purple skin rash

Several days before a rash develops, a patient may experience:

  • Fever
  • Sore throat
  • Cough
  • Burning eyes

Causes of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

The exact cause of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome cannot always be identified. This condition is usually an allergic reaction in response to medication, infection or illness. Medications are most often the cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and they include:

  • Anticonvulsants, such as Phenytoin (Dilantin), used to control certain type of seizures, and to treat and prevent seizures that may occur during or after neuro-surgery.
  • Anti-gout medications, such as allopurinol
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
  • Sulfonamides and penicillins, used to treat infections

Infections can sometimes be the cause Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, and they include:

  • Herpes (herpes simplex or herpes zoster)
  • Influenza
  • HIV
  • Diphtheria
  • Typhoid
  • Hepatitis

In some rare cases, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome may be caused by physical stimuli, such as radiation therapy or ultraviolet light.

Complications Related to Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

Secondary skin infection (cellulitis): Secondary skin infections caused by Stevens-Johnson Syndrome can lead to life-threatening complications, including meningitis — an infection of the membrane and fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord — and sepsis.

Sepsis: Sepsis occurs when bacteria from a massive infection enter the bloodstream and spread throughout the body. Sepsis is a rapidly progressing, life-threatening condition that can cause shock and organ failure.

Eye problems: The rash caused by Stevens-Johnson Syndrome can lead to inflammation of the eyes. In mild cases, it may cause irritation and dry eyes, while in more severe cases, it can lead to extensive tissue damage and scarring within the eyes resulting in blindness.

Damage to internal organs: Stevens-Johnson Syndrome can cause lesions on internal organs, which can result in inflammation of lungs (pneumonitis), heart (myocarditis), kidney (nephritis) and liver (hepatitis).

Permanent skin damage: When a patient’s skin regrows following Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, it may have abnormal bumps and discoloration (pigmentation). Scars may remain on the skin as well. Permanent skin problems may cause hair to fall out and to not regrow. Fingernails and toenails may also not grow normally, following Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

Tests and Diagnosis for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

Diagnosis is made primarily on the appearance and spread of the skin lesions, and on a history that includes introduction of a new medication within the previous one to three weeks. Physicians will consider other potential diseases that cause similar symptoms before reaching a diagnosis of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. One is erythema multiforme, a recurrent skin disorder that produces lesions similar in appearance to Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. However, this disorder is not caused by a drug reaction and does not lead to sheet-like shedding of the skin. Doctors often can identify Stevens-Johnson Syndrome based on medical history, a physical exam and the disorder’s distinctive signs and symptoms. To confirm the diagnosis, a doctor may take a tissue sample of a patient’s skin (biopsy) for examination under a microscope.

Treatment of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome requires hospitalization, often in an intensive care unit or burn unit. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is an emergency medical condition. If a patient has signs and symptoms of this illness, they should call 911 or go to an emergency room immediately. If a patient has time before leaving for the hospital, it is critical that they record all medications and dosages that they are taking. The first and most important step in treating Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is to discontinue any medications that may be causing it. Because it is difficult to determine exactly which drug may be causing the problem, the doctor may recommend that the patient stop taking all nonessential medications. Medications used to treat Stevens-Johnson Syndrome include: pain medication to reduce discomfort, antihistamines to relieve itching, antibiotics to control infection, topical steroids to reduce skin inflammation, intravenous corticosteroids to lessen the severity of symptoms and shorten recovery time, and immunoglobulin intravenous (IGIV) containing antibodies to help the immune system halt the process of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Since some of these medications have also been implicated as a potential cause in some cases of SJS and are known to supress the immune system, their use should be considered carefully.

Speak to a Dilantin Lawyer

If you took Dilantin and suffered Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), we encourage you to contact a Dilantin attorney at our law firm immediately. An experienced product liability attorney can assist you in a legal action against the makers of Dilantin. Contact our law firm and learn more about your legal rights and the options available to you and your family.

Author: Richard G Ohye, MD, Head, Division of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery; Program Director, Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Fellowship, University of Michigan Medical Center

Coauthor(s): Ralph S Mosca, MD, Director, Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian Medical Center; Edward L Bove, MD, Associate Director, PICU, CS Mott Children’s Hospital; Director, Department of Surgery, Section of Thoracic Surgery, Division of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Professor, University of Michigan Medical Center

Treatment of Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS)

Medical Therapy

Initial medical support in infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) requires a specific medical regimen. The goals of preoperative management are to maintain ductal patency and to provide the appropriate balance between the systemic and pulmonary vascular resistances. Intravenous prostaglandin E is infused at 0.05 mcg/kg/min to maintain patency of the ductus arteriosus. This dose may be titrated to keep the ductus arteriosus open while minimizing the risk of apnea.Oxygen saturation is monitored by pulse oximetry. Acidosis is rapidly reversed using sodium bicarbonate. The fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) is adjusted to maintain a relative hypoxemia (oxygen saturation 75-80%), which aids in preventing the pulmonary vasodilatation associated with high oxygen concentrations. Even in the neonate who is being resuscitated because of circulatory collapse, ventilation with a high concentration of oxygen is avoided because it may only further decrease pulmonary vascular resistance and systemic blood flow.

Blood transfusion should be performed to maintain the hematocrit between 45-50%. Mechanical ventilation is avoided when possible, but infants on ventilation may require sedation with intravenous fentanyl to prevent tachypnea. In patients with significant pulmonary overcirculation, hypoventilation to maintain a mild respiratory acidosis (partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PCO2] of 45-55 mm Hg) and elevation of pulmonary vascular resistance may be used. Occasionally, inhaled nitrogen or carbon dioxide can be added to reduce the FIO2 to between 16-18% to increase pulmonary vascular resistance. Inotropic support is advantageous in patients with depressed right ventricular function.

Nourishment is usually provided via intravenous hyperalimentation, which avoids the added risk of necrotizing enterocolitis prior to surgery. Diuretics are added, as necessary, when pulmonary congestion becomes apparent. This regimen simulates the fetal balance of pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance, stabilizing the infant while deciding on therapeutic options.

Surgical Therapy

Parents of children with HLHS are presented with the following 3 options: (1) supportive therapy only (leading usually to rapid demise), (2) staged reconstruction, and (3) orthotopic cardiac transplantation. Each institution must assess its results with the various modes of therapy and counsel the parents accordingly. As outcomes of palliative procedures and heart transplantation in patients with HLHS have improved, even surpassing therapies for other complex forms of congenital heart disease in some patients, the first option of supportive therapy only has been challenged. The techniques and results of staged reconstruction are discussed below.

The goal of staged reconstruction is a Fontan procedure, creating separate pulmonary and systemic circulations supported by a single (right) ventricle. The initial stage must provide unobstructed systemic blood flow from the right ventricle to the aorta and coronary arteries, relieve any obstruction to pulmonary venous return, and limit pulmonary blood flow by virtue of an appropriately sized systemic–to–pulmonary artery shunt or RVPAC.

As a result of the relatively high pulmonary vascular resistance present in the newborn period, a systemic shunt is necessary, and the right ventricle performs the increased volume of work of both the pulmonary and systemic circulations. Preservation of right ventricular function has been aided by using smaller initial aortopulmonary shunts to limit right ventricular volume overload, by using an RVPAC, and by using an interim procedure between the Norwood and Fontan operations. This staging procedure, either a bidirectional Glenn anastomosis or a hemi-Fontan procedure, is usually performed at age 6 months.

Recently, the use of an RVPAC as an alternative to the traditional MBTS has been proposed. Initially described by Norwood in his original description of the Norwood procedure, the use of the MBTS quickly became the preferred source of pulmonary blood flow. In 2002, Sano and colleagues described their experience with the Norwood procedure, with improvements in hospital survival from 53-89% when compared with historical controls. Several other groups also reported similar improvements in outcomes, based on historical controls. A recent comparison using nonrandomized, but contemporary, controls by Tabbutt and colleagues revealed no difference in hospital survival.

The general trend in the literature has been that centers that have had difficulties in achieving optimal survivals with the Norwood procedure have found a benefit to using the RVPAC, whereas institutions that have had better success with the Norwood procedure have found no improvement. The optimal source of pulmonary blood flow remains to be determined. Each source has inherent advantages and disadvantages, and the long-term, or even intermediate-term, effects are unknown. The MBTS results in significant diastolic run-off and potential coronary steal. The RVPAC avoids this run-off but adds the undesirable need to place an incision on the right ventricle.

A multi-institutional, randomized, controlled trial comparing the MBTS and the RVPAC was recently concluded by the Pediatric Heart Network with funding from the National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The main results manuscript of the Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial are anticipated to be published in the summer of 2010.

Whichever source of pulmonary blood flow is selected, these procedures provide adequate pulmonary blood flow while decreasing volume overload to the right ventricle and improving effective pulmonary blood flow until the patient can undergo a completion Fontan procedure. As described in detail in Second-stage palliation: Hemi-Fontan or bidirectional Glenn anastomosis, the hemi-Fontan procedure is a modification of the bidirectional Glenn procedure. The hemi-Fontan procedure involves (1) a side-to-side connection between the superior vena cava (SVC)/right atrial junction and the pulmonary arteries, (2) routine augmentation of the branch pulmonary arteries, and (3) temporary patch closure between the pulmonary arteries and the right atrium.

As mentioned above, a newer alternative method of staged repair is the hybrid procedure. The hybrid procedure provides the essential elements of the Norwood procedure, namely, providing unrestricted systemic output from the right ventricle and controlling pulmonary blood flow without the need for an open heart procedure with cardiopulmonary bypass. For the hybrid procedure, the invasive cardiologist and the congenital cardiac surgeon work in concert. Generally, the surgeon opens the chest and places an introducer into the pulmonary artery. The cardiologist then places a stent in the patent ductus arteriosus to provide systemic output from the right ventricle. Concurrently or at interval, the atrial septal communication is assured by balloon septostomy +/- stenting and pulmonary artery blood flow is controlled with the use of bilateral pulmonary artery bands.

The second stage, the so-called comprehensive stage II procedure, involves an aortic reconstruction as in the Norwood procedure and a hemi-Fontan or bidirectional Glenn as described above.

Intraoperative Details

First-stage palliation: Norwood procedure

Through a midline sternotomy, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is established. A minimum of 20 minutes of cooling to a core temperature of 18°C is begun for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Alternatively, some groups have reported the use of regional low-flow cerebral perfusion in lieu of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (see Future and Controversies).

Regardless of the technique used, the septum primum is completely excised (atrial septectomy). The ductus is ligated and divided. The main pulmonary trunk is proximally divided to the bifurcation of the pulmonary arteries. The resultant opening in the pulmonary artery is closed with a patch of pericardium, polytetrafluoroethylene, or homograft. The remaining ductal tissue (on the undersurface of the aortic arch) is completely excised, and the incision is extended at least 10 mm further down the descending aorta into a normal-appearing and normal-caliber aorta (see following image).

 HLHS-Image-1The main pulmonary artery and ductus arteriosus have been divided. Dashes indicate the line of incision on the hypoplastic ascending aorta. Image courtesy of Edward L. Bove, MD.

This incision is proximally extended under the transverse arch and down the diminutive ascending aorta until the level of the previously divided main pulmonary trunk is reached (see following image).

 

HLHS-Image-2 The ascending aorta is opened and sutured to the adjacent proximal main pulmonary artery. A patch of pulmonary homograft is fashioned to create the neoaorta (inset). Image courtesy of Edward L. Bove, MD.

A cryopreserved pulmonary allograft is trimmed to fashion a patch that serves to enlarge the aorta and allow anastomosis to the proximal main pulmonary trunk (see inset in image above). The remainder of the aorta is attached to the pulmonary allograft, proximally incorporating the main pulmonary trunk. The cannulae are replaced to begin bypass and commence systemic rewarming to 37°C.

A polytetrafluoroethylene shunt is placed from the innominate artery to the central pulmonary artery during rewarming (see image below). A 4-mm shunt is used in patients who weigh more than 3.5-4 kg; smaller patients receive a 3.5-mm shunt. The distal end of the shunt is centrally placed on the pulmonary arteries, rather than onto the right pulmonary artery, to promote even distribution of blood flow to both lungs. Alternatively, the right ventricle–to–pulmonary artery conduit can be placed. These polytetrafluoroethylene grafts are generally either 5 mm or 6 mm in diameter.

 HLHS-Image-3Completed Norwood procedure showing reconstructed neoaorta and modified Blalock-Taussig shunt from the innominate artery to the confluence of the branch pulmonary arteries. Image courtesy of Edward L. Bove, MD.

Second-stage palliation: Hemi-Fontan or bidirectional Glenn anastomosis procedure

The hemi-Fontan operation or a bidirectional Glenn anastomosis is typically performed in infants aged 3-10 months to minimize the period of time during which the right ventricle is subject to volume overload. Cardiac catheterization is performed prior to this procedure to evaluate pulmonary vascular resistance, pulmonary artery anatomy, tricuspid valve regurgitation, and right ventricular function.

To perform a bidirectional Glenn procedure, CPB is achieved with neoaortic arch cannulation and separate right-angle IVC and right-angle SVC cannulae. The aortopulmonary shunt is ligated and divided when CPB is initiated. If any stenosis of the pulmonary artery secondary to the prior shunt or patch is present, the stenosis is repaired with patch augmentation. The azygous vein is ligated and divided. The SVC is transected and anastomosed in an end-to-side fashion to the superior aspect of the right pulmonary artery. The cardiac end of the transected SVC is oversewn. Some groups routinely perform the bidirectional Glenn procedure without CPB, with or without an SVC-to–right aorta temporary shunt, during the anastomosis to minimize high cerebrovenous pressures.

The hemi-Fontan procedure has the same physiologic factors as a bidirectional Glenn anastomosis but includes an anastomosis of the pulmonary arteries to an incision in the atriocaval junction. The cavopulmonary connection may be performed under a brief period of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Alternatively, cannulation of the IVC and high on the SVC can be used to perform the procedure entirely during CPB.

Whether the procedure is performed under circulatory arrest or during CPB, the remainder of the procedure is the same. The aortopulmonary shunt is divided, and the pulmonary arteries are mobilized from the right to the left upper lobe. The azygous vein is ligated. The right atrium is opened along the superior aspect of the appendage, and a corresponding incision is made transversely along the confluence of the branch pulmonary arteries (see upper left of image below). The posterior aspect of the right arteriotomy is anastomosed to the inferior aspect of the pulmonary arteriotomy (see upper right of following image).

 HLHS-Image-4Hemi-Fontan procedure. The modified Blalock-Taussig shunt is ligated, and incisions are made in the right atrial appendage and pulmonary arteries (upper left). The posterior aspect of the right atriotomy is anastomosed to the inferior aspect of the pulmonary arteriotomy (upper right). A patch of polytetrafluoroethylene is placed to prevent the superior vena cava return from entering the right atrium. The cavopulmonary connection is roofed with a patch of pulmonary homograft (lower). Image courtesy of Koji Kagasaki, MD.

A patch of pulmonary allograft tissue is fashioned to augment the pulmonary arteries. The allograft patch is begun at the left upper lobe, incorporating a separate end-to-side anastomosis for a left SVC, if necessary (see lower portion of above image). A patch is placed within the right atrium, which isolates SVC return into the pulmonary arteries and provides an unobstructed pathway for connection of IVC return during the Fontan procedure (see lower portion of above image). The atrial septal defect is inspected and enlarged, if necessary, which is completed best by cutting back the coronary sinus into the left atrium. Tricuspid valve repair is also performed as needed.

The advantage of the hemi-Fontan is that it shortens the length of time of CPB and dissection required for the completion Fontan procedure, which requires only the removal of the intra-atrial patch and placement of a lateral tunnel in the right atrium from the IVC to the SVC. In addition, routine augmentation of the branch pulmonary arteries helps optimize the anatomy for the completion Fontan procedure.

Third-stage palliation: Fontan procedure

The completion Fontan procedure is usually performed in children aged 18-24 months. The infant is evaluated using cardiac catheterization prior to surgery. The Fontan technique used by the authors for HLHS anatomy is the technique termed total cavopulmonary connection with a lateral tunnel. After achieving CPB, the right atrium is opened.

If a hemi-Fontan procedure has been performed, the intra-atrial baffle is resected. In bidirectional Glenn anastomosis, a right atrium–to–pulmonary artery anastomosis is created. A baffle of polytetrafluoroethylene is fashioned and placed inside of the right atrium to convey the IVC return to the cavopulmonary connection (see image below). This technique minimizes the possibility of obstruction of the pulmonary venous return, which can be caused by an atriopulmonary anastomosis. Fenestration of the baffle may help prevent complications in high-risk patients and shorten the period of pleural drainage. Some centers opt for an extracardiac, instead of an intracardiac, lateral tunnel Fontan.

 HLHS-Image-5Fontan procedure. Through a right atriotomy, the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch has been removed. A new PTFE patch is placed to baffle the inferior vena cava return to the cavopulmonary connection constructed during the hemi-Fontan procedure (left). The arrows indicate the systemic venous return bypassing the right heart to directly enter the pulmonary arteries (right). Image courtesy of Edward L. Bove, MD.

First-stage palliation: Hybrid procedure

The hybrid procedure is performed either in an operating room with cardiac catheterization capability or in a cardiac catheterization suite. A median sternotomy is performed and bilateral pulmonary artery bands are placed at the take off of the left pulmonary artery and on the right pulmonary artery between the aorta and superior vena cava. The bands are constructed by cutting a 1- to 2-mm ring from a 3.5-mm polytetrafluoroethylene tube graft (GoreTex, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz). A 3.0-mm graft is used for patients weighing less than 2.5 kg.

The exact diameter of the bands is based upon patient weight, pulmonary artery diameter, systemic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and angiography. Typically, systemic blood pressure increases by 10 mm Hg and peripheral oxygen saturation has an absolute decrease of 10% with appropriately tight bands. An introducer sheath is then placed through the main pulmonary artery via a pursestring suture. A stent is deployed in the patent ductus arteriosus to provide unrestricted systemic blood flow. Just prior to discharge, a balloon atrial septostomy, and, if necessary, a stent are performed to maintain the atrial communication.

Second-stage palliation: Comprehensive stage II procedure

Via a median sternotomy, cardiopulmonary bypass is initiated with cooling for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest or regional cerebral perfusion at the discretion of the surgeon. The pulmonary artery bands are removed and the arteries are augmented as needed. The stent is removed and the aortic reconstruction is performed as in a Norwood operation. A bidirectional Glenn or hemi-Fontan is performed, depending on surgeon preference.

Postoperative Details

First-stage palliation: Norwood procedure

After weaning from CPB, an atrial-monitoring catheter is placed to measure central venous pressure, and infusion of inotropes is initiated. University of Michigan medical staff routinely use continuous infusions of milrinone and low-dose dopamine, adding epinephrine in doses of 0.02-0.06 mcg/kg/min if hypotension is significant. Ventilation, with an initial FIO2 of 100% to achieve a PCO2 of approximately 35 mm Hg, is initiated and adjusted depending on the systemic arterial oxygen saturation and the systemic perfusion. If poor peripheral perfusion with systemic saturation in excess of 80-85% is noted, the FIO2 and minute ventilation are decreased to avoid excess pulmonary vasodilatation. The opposite maneuvers are used if systemic oxygen saturation is less than 70-75%.

Postoperative management is aimed at maintaining the delicate balance between the systemic and pulmonary vascular resistances and, therefore, relative systemic and pulmonary blood flow. Many regimens of ventilation, inotropic support, and vasodilatory support have been used, and multiple indicators of perfusion adequacy (mixed venous oxygen, lactate) have been measured with varying degrees of success.

Ideally, systemic arterial saturation should be maintained at 75-80%, which usually indicates that an optimal pulmonary-to-systemic blood flow ratio of less than 1 has been achieved. However, measurements of mixed venous oxygen saturation and pulmonary venous oxygen saturation are necessary to accurately assess the ratio of pulmonary blood flow (Qp) to systemic blood flow (Qs). The authors have found that serial lactate measurements provide an excellent indication of low cardiac output, and they rely on these determinations rather than mixed venous oxygen saturations.

Second- and third-stage palliation: Hemi-Fontan and Fontan procedures

For second- and third-stage operations, maintaining a low pulmonary vascular resistance is paramount. The pulmonary blood flow no longer is driven by an arterial shunt (or systemic RV, in cases of Sano modification), but by central venous pressure. Hypoxia and acidosis, which increase pulmonary vascular resistance, are avoided. Although mild respiratory alkalosis may be beneficial for pulmonary vascular resistance, a pH higher than 7.45-7.5 decreases cerebral blood flow and, hence, SVC return. After the hemi-Fontan procedure is performed, this decrease in SVC return decreases pulmonary blood flow. Inhaled nitrous oxide (NO) may also be used to decrease pulmonary vascular resistance but is infrequently needed.

Follow-up

After discharge from the hospital, regular cardiovascular evaluations are important. The child should be carefully observed for aortic arch obstruction, tricuspid insufficiency, and increasing cyanosis secondary to a limited atrial septal defect, shunt stenosis, or pulmonary artery distortion. For other long-term concerns, see Complications and Outcomes and Prognosis.

Complications

Complications that result from a procedure of the magnitude of the Norwood palliation are fairly common. Complications may include bleeding, low cardiac output syndrome, and arrhythmia in the immediate postoperative period. Aggressive correction of thrombocytopenia and coagulation factors is warranted. Poor peripheral and end-organ perfusion may represent poor cardiac output or pulmonary overcirculation, which may be treated by inotropic support or manipulation of relative pulmonary and systemic resistances. Common arrhythmias include junctional ectopic tachycardiac, which can be treated either with surface cooling to 35-36°C and pacing or with amiodarone infusion.

Incidence of unexplained sudden death, both in the immediate postoperative period and after discharge, remains problematic. In the postoperative period, the authors found that serial serum lactate determinations demonstrating failure to clear lactic acidosis have been helpful in predicting patients who will do poorly despite an apparently stable clinical condition.

Shunt complications, such as thrombosis, can occur. All patients are started on low-dose aspirin when they begin enteral nutrition. Other causes of increasing cyanosis during the postoperative period include pulmonary artery stenosis or distortion and restriction at the level of the atrial septal defect.

Evaluation prior to the hemi-Fontan procedure may reveal pulmonary artery stenosis, particularly of the left branch or at the insertion of the shunt. These stenoses are managed with patch augmentation during the hemi-Fontan procedure. Residual coarctation should be rare if the initial homograft patch is brought sufficiently onto the descending aorta during the Norwood procedure. Postoperative coarctation can usually be managed with balloon dilatation or, if necessary, surgical augmentation.

Long-term complications following the Fontan operation include atrial arrhythmia, thromboembolic events, and protein-losing enteropathy. Atrial arrhythmias are less common with the current techniques of cavopulmonary connections and may be treated with standard antiarrhythmic therapy. All of the authors’ patients who undergo the Fontan procedure are maintained on aspirin therapy, whereas others have advocated low-dose warfarin as prophylaxis against thromboembolism. Patients in whom the classic atriopulmonary connection Fontan procedure is performed with a dilated right atrium may benefit from conversion to a lateral tunnel or extracardiac Fontan operation to treat both arrhythmia and thrombosis.

Protein-losing enteropathy remains a difficult problem, affecting as many as 5% of patients who undergo the Fontan procedure. Treatment with intravenous infusions of albumin and immunoglobulin are supportive but not curative. Several other methods, including intravenous heparin, Fontan takedown, and cardiac transplantation, have been used with varying success.

Outcome and Prognosis

First-stage palliation

Bove et al at the University of Michigan studied first-stage palliation of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) from January 1990 to August 1995 in 158 patients. All patients had classic HLHS, defined as right ventricle–dependent circulation, in association with atresia or severe hypoplasia of the aortic valve. Patients were subdivided into a standard-risk (n=127) population and a high-risk (n=31) population. High-risk patients included those undergoing the Norwood procedure after age 1 month, patients with severe obstruction to pulmonary venous return, and patients with significant noncardiac congenital conditions (ie, prematurity, low birth weight, chromosomal anomalies).

Hospital survivors numbered 120 (76%). The hospital survival rate was significantly better in the 127 standard-risk patients (86%) than in the high-risk group (42%). The risk factor analysis failed to reveal any effect on outcome by the morphologic subgroup, ascending aorta size, shunt size, initial pH at hospital presentation, or duration of circulatory arrest.

Among 151 patients at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in a report by Norwood et al, 42 (28%) early deaths and 9 (5%) late deaths occurred. In a Children’s Hospital Boston series reported by Jonas et al, 78 neonates underwent palliative reconstructive surgery from 1983-1991. Hospital deaths numbered 29 (37%). Analysis of deaths revealed a greater risk of hospital death for infants with aortic atresia and mitral atresia, especially those with ascending aortic dimensions of less than 2 mm. However, in the authors’ experience, these conditions have not been associated with increased risk.

The results for the hospital survival for the Norwood procedure has continued to improve. In 2002, Tweddell and colleagues reported a 93% hospital survival in 81 patients undergoing a Norwood procedure for HLHS.

Galantowicz and colleagues published their results with the hybrid approach. The hospital survival rate was 97.5%.

Second-stage palliation

Hospital records of 114 patients undergoing the hemi-Fontan procedure for HLHS between August 1993 and April 1998 at the University of Michigan Medical Center were reviewed by Douglas et al. The overall hospital survival rate was 98% (112 patients). Sinus rhythm was present in 92% of patients. At the time of publication, 79 of the patients had undergone the completion Fontan procedure, with 74 survivors (94%). A similar study by Forbess et al from the Children’s Hospital Boston also revealed that a cavopulmonary anastomosis performed as a second-stage procedure for HLHS reduced mortality and improved intermediate survival rates.

Galantowicz and colleagues also reported their overall results on the 40 patients referenced above. There were 2 interstage deaths (5%), 2 reoperations, and 12 reinterventions in the catheterization lab. Thirty-six patients underwent comprehensive stage II procedures with 3 deaths (8%).

Third-stage palliation
 
One hundred consecutive patients with classic HLHS underwent a Fontan procedure at the University of Michigan between February 1992 and April 1998. The survival rate in patients (n=52) undergoing surgery in the second half of the study and treated with a prior hemi-Fontan procedure at second-stage palliation was 98%. No deaths have occurred in patients undergoing the last 125 consecutive Fontan procedures for HLHS. Several other centers also have reported significant improvements in survival rates following the Fontan procedure in patients with HLHS.

The results of the hybrid approach through the Fontan procedure were also reported by Galantowicz et al. One interstage mortality occurred and 15 patients had undergone Fontan completion while 17 awaited Fontan. Among the 15 patients who underwent Fontan completion, no mortalities occurred.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes

As survivals have improved, other endpoints, such as patient neurodevelopmental outcome, have become of increasing interest to the healthcare provider caring for the patient with HLHS. Similar to any patient with cyanotic congenital heart disease, patients with HLHS are at risk for neurodevelopmental delay for multiple reasons. Cyanosis, congestive heart failure, and CNS abnormalities are associated with HLHS and can contribute to developmental delay. In addition, CPB and hypothermic circulatory arrest at the time of repair can cause neurologic injury.

In a recent study from the University of Michigan Medical Center, Goldberg and colleagues evaluated 51 patients with single ventricle physiology, 26 patients with HLHS, and 25 patients with other cardiac anomalies. The primary testing methods were the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence, revised for children aged 34-87 months, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, third edition, for children aged 72 months to 17 years. Additional tests included the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, and the Child Behavior Checklist.

Results indicated that children with HLHS scored statistically lower than children without HLHS with single ventricles. However, neither group scored significantly differently than population standards. As has been seen in children with congenital heart disease in general, patients in this study scored significantly better on tests of verbal intelligence than on tests of motor skills. Socioeconomic status, hypothermic circulatory arrest, and perioperative seizures were significant risk factors for impaired neurodevelopmental outcome. Duration of CPB, cardiac arrest requiring resuscitation, and clinical shock or pH less than 7.1 did not correlate with a poor neurodevelopmental result.

Future and Controversies

Several groups have begun to use the techniques of regional cerebral perfusion for aortic arch reconstruction in lieu of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. For this technique, the proximal anastomosis of the modified Blalock-Taussig shunt is performed prior to arresting the heart. Then, the arterial cannula can be placed into the shunt, and perfusion is administered to the innominate artery. Whether these techniques will improve perioperative survival rates or long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes has yet to be determined. Recent publications have failed to demonstrate any improvement in outcome with regional cerebral perfusion.

Currently, numerous groups are advocating the use of an extracardiac conduit to complete the Fontan procedure. This technique may offer significant advantages; however, patients may be exposed to the risks of thromboembolic complications inherent in prosthetic conduits in the venous system. Lack of growth is also of concern. The literature does not have a consensus that favors one technique over the other.

The role of the hybrid approach compared to the traditional 3-stage method remains to be determined. Survivals at the most experienced centers are comparable. Whether there will be long-term benefit to avoiding the Norwood operation at the time of birth for such outcomes as neurodevelopment remain to be proven.

Comparison of the MBTS and the RVPAC awaits the results of the Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial, which should be published in the summer of 2010.

Future considerations for the Fontan procedure in this subgroup of patients include minimization of thromboembolic events, preservation of right ventricular and tricuspid valve function, and prevention of arrhythmias.

Wellbutrin (bupropion) is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline and was first approved by the FDA as an antidepressant in December 1985. Researchers are warning patients about serious side effects from using Wellbutrin. Results from a recent medical study suggest that there may be an increased risk of heart birth defects from Wellbutrin when the antidepressant is taken during pregnancy. Mothers who used bupropion during their first trimester were more than twice as likely to give birth to an infant with a congenital heart problem known as a left outflow tract defect. Researchers cautioned that the study does not draw a cause-and-effect relationship between Wellbutrin and birth defects, and further research is necessary.

Wellbutrin Marketing

Wellbutrin is marketed under the following names:

  • Wellbutrin
  • Wellbutrin SR
  • Wellbutrin XL
  • Zyban
  • Bupropion
  • Bupropion Hydrochloride
  • Bupropion HCI

Potential Signals of Serious Risks/New Safety Information Identified by the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) between January – March 2010

The table below lists the names of products and potential signals of serious risks/new safety information that were identified for these products during the period January – March 2010 in the AERS database. The appearance of a drug on this list does not mean that FDA has concluded that the drug has the listed risk. It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk. If after further evaluation the FDA determines that the drug is associated with the risk, it may take a variety of actions including requiring changes to the labeling of the drug, requiring development of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or gathering additional data to better characterize the risk.

FDA wants to emphasize that the listing of a drug and a potential safety issue on this Web site does not mean that FDA is suggesting prescribers should not prescribe the drug or that patients taking the drug should stop taking the medication. Patients who have questions about their use of the identified drug should contact their health care provider. FDA will complete its evaluation of each potential signal/new safety information and issue additional public communications as appropriate.

Potential Signals of Serious Risks/New Safety Information Identified by the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) January – March 2010

Product Name: Active Ingredient (Trade) or Product Class Potential Signal of a Serious Risk / New Safety Information Additional Information
(as of October 31, 2010)
Azacitidine (Vidaza) Acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis (Sweet’s syndrome) FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Azithromycin (Zithromax) Liver failure FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Azithromycin extended release 2 g (Zmax) Pyloric stenosis FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
C1 esterase inhibitors (Cinryze, Berinert) Thromboembolic events in patients with certain thrombogenic risk factors FDA is evaluating this issue to determine whether current labeling is adequate.
Clarithromycin (Biaxin) Liver failure FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Daptomycin (Cubicin) Pulmonary eosinophilia, Eosinophilic pneumonia  

FDA Drug Safety Communication1

The Warnings and Precautions section of the labeling for Cubicin was updated September 2010, to include pulmonary eosinophilia and eosinophilic pneumonia.

Daptomycin (Cubicin) Labeling approved August 13, 2010 (PDF – 236KB)2

Dronedarone hydrochloride (Multaq) Congestive heart failure FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Estrogens, conjugated (Premarin) Angioedema FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Modafinil (Provigil) Convulsion FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Prasugrel hydrochloride (Effient) Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Ranolazine (Ranexa) Torsades de Pointes  

FDA decided that no action is necessary at this time based on available information. FDA is continuing to monitor the issue.

Sodium oxybate (Xyrem) Convulsion FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.
Temsirolimus (Torisel) Infusion site extravasation FDA is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the need for any regulatory action.

 

    

FDA notified healthcare professionals of a Class I recall of LIFEPAK 15 Monitor/Defibrillator manufactured and distributed between March 26, 2009 and December 15, 2009. There is a potential for the device to unexpectedly:

  • Power Off then On by itself.
  • Power Off then NOT turn On.
  • Power Off by itself requiring the operator to turn it back On.
  • Stay powered On and not allow itself to be turned Off.

Healthcare professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.