Prevention of recurrent central venous stenosis using endovascular irradiation following stent placement in hemodialysis patients

This study was done to evaluate the outcome after brachytherapy (BT) given to prevent restenosis after stent insertion for central venous stenosis in patients with ipsilateral hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas (AVF). Angioplasty and stenting were performed on 9 primary central venous stenoses in 8 patients with AVF followed by BT, delivering Iridium-192 radiation using an afterloading technique. BT was also administered to three patients with five recurrent stenoses at the stent margins. There was no residual stenosis after angioplasty and stenting. Venographic follow-up (77-644 days, mean 272 days) showed no restenosis in seven primary stenoses. New strictures (45%-100%) developed at the stent margin in six veins (five patients). Angioplasty or stenting was performed for five margin stenoses in three patients, followed by a second BT. Residual stenosis before BT was 0-30%. In our venographic follow-up (140-329 days, mean 215 days), three restenoses occurred (35%-100%). All progressed to complete occlusion on later venographic follow-up irrespective of whether BT was given to the stent margin or not. The mean primary and assisted primary patency of the central veins were 359 days and 639 days, respectively. Endovascular irradiation with a noncentering source does not prolong the patency after angioplasty and stenting of central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field