Consensus Statement on Bone Conduction Devices and Active Middle Ear Implants in Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Nowadays, several options are available to treat patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Whenever surgical intervention is not possible or contra-indicated, and amplification by a conventional hearing device (e.g., behind-the-ear device) is not feasible, then implantable hearing devices are an indispensable next option. Implantable bone-conduction devices and middle-ear implants have advantages but also limitations concerning complexity/invasiveness of the surgery, medical complications, and effectiveness. To counsel the patient, the clinician should have a good overview of the options with regard to safety and reliability as well as unequivocal technical performance data. The present consensus document is the outcome of an extensive iterative process including ENT specialists, audiologists, health-policy scientists, and representatives/technicians of the main companies in this field. This document should provide a first framework for procedures and technical characterization to enhance effective communication between these stakeholders, improving health care

Importance of liver biopsy findings in immunosuppression management: Biopsy monitoring and working criteria for patients with operational tolerance

Obstacles to morbidity-free long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) include complications of immunosuppression (IS), recurrence of the original disease and malignancies, and unexplained chronic hepatitis and graft fibrosis. Many programs attempt to minimize chronic exposure to IS by reducing dosages and stopping steroids. A few programs have successfully weaned a highly select group of recipients from all IS without apparent adverse consequences, but long-term follow-up is limited. Patients subjected to adjustments in IS are usually followed by serial liver chemistry tests, which are relatively insensitive methods for detecting allograft damage. Protocol biopsy has largely been abandoned for hepatitis C virusnegative recipients, at least in part because of the inability to integrate routine histopathological findings into a rational clinical management algorithm. Recognizing a need to more precisely categorize and determine the clinical significance of findings in long-term biopsy samples, the Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology has reviewed the literature, pooled the experience of its members, and proposed working definitions for biopsy changes that (1) are conducive to lowering IS and are compatible with operational tolerance (OT) and (2) raise concern for closer follow-up and perhaps increased IS during or after IS weaning. The establishment of guidelines should help us to standardize analyses of the effects of various treatments and/or weaning protocols and more rigorously categorize patients who are assumed to show OT. Long-term follow-up using standardized criteria will help us to determine the consequences of lowering IS and to define and determine the incidence and robustness of OT in liver allografts. Liver Transpl 18:1154-1170, 2012. (c) 2012 AASLD

Consensus Statement on Bone Conduction Devices and Active Middle Ear Implants in Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss.

Nowadays, several options are available to treat patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Whenever surgical intervention is not possible or contra-indicated, and amplification by a conventional hearing device (e.g., behind-the-ear device) is not feasible, then implantable hearing devices are an indispensable next option. Implantable bone-conduction devices and middle-ear implants have advantages but also limitations concerning complexity/invasiveness of the surgery, medical complications, and effectiveness. To counsel the patient, the clinician should have a good overview of the options with regard to safety and reliability as well as unequivocal technical performance data. The present consensus document is the outcome of an extensive iterative process including ENT specialists, audiologists, health-policy scientists, and representatives/technicians of the main companies in this field. This document should provide a first framework for procedures and technical characterization to enhance effective communication between these stakeholders, improving health care

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable