Explaining the Higgs Decays at the LHC with an Extended Electroweak Model

We show that the recent discovery of a new boson at the LHC, which we assume to be a Higgs boson, and the observed enhancement in its diphoton decays compared to the SM prediction, can be explained by a new doublet of charged vector bosons from an extended electroweak gauge sector model with SU(3)_C\otimesSU(3)_L\otimesU(1)_X symmetry. Our results show a good agreement between our theoretical expected sensitivity to a 126--125 GeV Higgs boson and the experimental significance observed in the diphoton channel at the 8 TeV LHC. Effects of an invisible decay channel for the Higgs boson are also taken into account, in order to anticipate a possible confirmation of deficits in the branching ratios into $ZZ^*$, $WW^*$, bottom quarks, and tau leptons.Comment: 16 pages, 5 figure

Health-related quality of life outcomes following elective open or endovascular AAA repair: a randomized controlled trial.

Contains fulltext : 58343.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)PURPOSE: To assess health-related quality of life outcomes after endovascular versus open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery according to a rate of 3 endovascular patients to 1 with open repair. Data on patient characteristics, operative aspects, and procedural and device-related complications were compiled at a single center. Health-related quality of life was assessed before treatment and 1 and 3 months following operation using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36) and the EuroQol questionnaire. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 1999, 57 patients (54 men; mean age 69 years, range 52-82) underwent endovascular and 19 patients (16 men; mean age 68 years, range 52-81) underwent open AAA repairs. Preoperatively, comparable scores were recorded in both treatment groups. One month after operation, patients of both groups scored significantly lower on the SF-36 domains of Role Limitations due to physical problems and Pain compared to preoperative scores. Three months after operation, both groups had scores in all domains comparable to preoperative levels of functioning. There was a significant benefit for the endovascular group 1 month after operation in the SF-36 domains of Physical Functioning, Role Limitations due to physical problems, Vitality, and Pain; their score on the EuroQol Usual Activities item was also significantly better. After 3 months, there were no longer differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term health-related quality of life benefits were found after endovascular repair compared with standard open surgery

Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Contains fulltext : 87282.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: For patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, randomized trials have shown an initial overall survival benefit for elective endovascular repair over conventional open repair. This survival difference, however, was no longer significant in the second year after the procedure. Information regarding the comparative outcome more than 2 years after surgery is important for clinical decision making. METHODS: We conducted a long-term, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The primary outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reintervention. Survival was calculated with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 178 patients to undergo open repair and 173 to undergo endovascular repair. Six years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for open repair and 68.9% for endovascular repair (difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.8 to 10.8; P=0.97). The cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9% for open repair and 70.4% for endovascular repair (difference, 11.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.0 to 21.0; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00421330.

Systematic approach to ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in the endovascular era: Intention-to-treat eEVAR protocol

Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) is still a relatively new treatment option. A pre-defined strategy of an eEVAR first approach for rAAA is associated with improved mortality rates. After establishing and implementing the Intention-to-treat eEVAR protocol for rAAAs the mortality and morbidity rates improved significantly. The presented Intention-to-treat eEVAR protocol starts at the first telephone call to the ambulance department and lasts until the post-operative care unit. The protocol involves the close collaboration between the ambulance department, vascular surgeon, emergency department physicians, anaesthesiologists, operating room staff and, radiology technicians. The availability of a variety of off-the-shelf stent-grafts, and an operating room that is adequately equipped to perform endovascular procedures is crucial in obtaining better outcomes. High volume centres that offer open surgical repair as well as eEVAR for rAAA show that the Intention-to-treat eEVAR protocol is achievable and appears to be associated with favorable mortality over open repair with appropriate case selection. Unstable or older patients with rAAA may particularly benefit by eEVAR

Peripheral artery disease: clinical and cost comparison between duplex ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography—a multicenter randomized trial.

Contains fulltext : 51529.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Peripheral arterial disease: clinical and cost comparisons between duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography--a multicenter randomized trial.

Contains fulltext : 49785_pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the clinical and economic consequences of replacing duplex ultrasonography (US) with contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography for the initial imaging work-up of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized multicenter study was approved by the institutional review board of each hospital, and all patients signed written informed consent prior to randomization. Patients with PAD who needed to undergo imaging work-up and who had an ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) of less than 0.90 were recruited by vascular surgeons between January 2002 and September 2003. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo contrast-enhanced MR angiography or duplex US. The primary outcome measure was cost. Secondary outcome measures included therapeutic confidence, changes in disease severity, and changes in quality of life (QOL) assessed during 6 months of follow-up. Indicators for disease severity were based on the Rutherford classification, treadmill walking distance, ABPI at rest, and ABPI after exercise. QOL was assessed with the Rating Scale, Short Form 36, EuroQol-5D, and VascuQol questionnaires. The cost of (additional) imaging procedures, therapeutic interventions, and outpatient visits were calculated from a hospital perspective (ie, all costs incurred inside the hospital were estimated, including physician costs). Data were evaluated by using the Student t test and a multivariable linear regression analysis. RESULTS: At 6 months, 352 patients (239 [68%] men, 113 [32%] women; mean age, 65 years) were analyzed. The use of contrast-enhanced MR angiography versus duplex US reduced the number of additional vascular imaging procedures by 42%; contrast-enhanced MR angiography was also associated with higher therapeutic confidence. Diagnostic costs for contrast-enhanced MR angiography were 167 euros (186 dollars) higher than those for duplex US (P .05). CONCLUSION: Replacing duplex US with contrast-enhanced MR angiography for the initial imaging work-up of patients with PAD reduces the need for additional imaging, although diagnostic costs are higher