3 research outputs found

    A new era of EU energy policy? Delivering on the Energy Union by National Plans. CEPS Commentary, 6 June 2017

    Get PDF
    Prior to the adoption of the EU’s 2030 Framework for Energy and Climate and its subsequent endorsement by the European Council in 2014,[1] the delivery of European objectives for 2020, the needed predictability for investors and transparency for citizens were ensured through national targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency as well as through sectoral planning and reporting obligations on member states. Not only was this energy and climate policy regime adapted in 2014 essentially by setting energy policy targets at the EU level, but it was complemented by a holistic energy policy strategy in 2015. The latter comprises the Energy Union and its five policy dimensions, which include – besides the 2030 Framework targets – energy security, the internal energy market and research, innovation and competitiveness.[2

    Semiconductor Nanowire Field-Effect Transistors as Sensitive Detectors in the Far-Infrared

    No full text
    Engineering detection dynamics in nanoscale receivers that operate in the far infrared (frequencies in the range 0.1–10 THz) is a challenging task that, however, can open intriguing perspectives for targeted applications in quantum science, biomedicine, space science, tomography, security, process and quality control. Here, we exploited InAs nanowires (NWs) to engineer antenna-coupled THz photodetectors that operated as efficient bolometers or photo thermoelectric receivers at room temperature. We controlled the core detection mechanism by design, through the different architectures of an on-chip resonant antenna, or dynamically, by varying the NW carrier density through electrostatic gating. Noise equivalent powers as low as 670 pWHz−1/2 with 1 µs response time at 2.8 THz were reached

    Effect of heparin treatment on pulmonary embolism and in-hospital death in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt deep vein thrombosis

    Get PDF
    Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) without overt deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was common in hospitalized coronavirus-induced disease (COVID)-19 patients and represented a diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic challenge. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic role of PE on mortality and the preventive effect of heparin on PE and mortality in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt DVT. Methods: Data from 401 unvaccinated patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 33% females) consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit or the medical ward were included in a retrospective longitudinal study. PE was documented by computed tomography scan and DVT by compressive venous ultrasound. The effect of PE diagnosis and any heparin use on in-hospital death (primary outcome) was analyzed by a classical survival model. The preventive effect of heparin on either PE diagnosis or in-hospital death (secondary outcome) was analyzed by a multi-state model after having reclassified patients who started heparin after PE diagnosis as not treated. Results: Median follow-up time was 8 days (range 1-40 days). PE cumulative incidence and in-hospital mortality were 27% and 20%, respectively. PE was predicted by increased D-dimer levels and COVID-19 severity. Independent predictors of in-hospital death were age (hazards ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.08, p < 0.001), body mass index (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, p = 0.004), COVID-19 severity (severe versus mild/moderate HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30-10.4, p = 0.014, critical versus mild/moderate HR 12.1, 95% CI 4.57-32.2, p < 0.001), active neoplasia (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.48-4.50, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.15-5.27, p = 0.020), respiratory rate (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.008), heart rate (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p < 0.001), and any heparin treatment (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67, p = 0.001). In the multi-state model, preventive heparin at prophylactic or intermediate/therapeutic dose, compared with no treatment, reduced PE risk and in-hospital death, but it did not influence mortality of patients with a PE diagnosis. Conclusions: PE was common during the first waves pandemic in unvaccinated patients, but it was not a negative prognostic factor for in-hospital death. Heparin treatment at any dose prevented mortality independently of PE diagnosis, D-dimer levels, and disease severity
    corecore