High specificity of cphA-encoded metallo-β-lactamase from Aeromonas hydrophila AEO36 for carbapenems and its contribution to β-lactam resistance

The Aeromonas hydrophila AE036 chromosome contains a cphA gene encoding a metallo-beta-lactamase highly active against carbapenem antibiotics. This enzyme was induced in strain AE036 to the same extent by both benzylpenicillin and imipenem. When the cphA gene was inserted into plasmid pACYC184, used to transform Escherichia coli DH5 alpha, the MICs of imipenem, meropenem, and penem HRE664 for recombinant clone DH5 alpha(pAA20R), expressing the Aeromonas metallo-beta-lactamase, were significantly increased, but those of penicillins and cephalosporins were not. When the metallo-beta-lactamase purified from E. coli DH5 alpha(pAA20R) was assayed with several beta-lactam substrates, it hydrolyzed carbapenems but not penicillins or cephalosporins efficiently. These results demonstrate that this metallo-beta-lactamase possesses an unusual spectrum of activity compared with all the other class B enzymes identified so far, being active on penems and carbapenems only. This enzyme may thus contribute to the development of resistance to penems and carbapenems but not other beta-lactams

Involvement of the genicular branches in cystic adventitial disease of the popliteal artery as a possible marker of unfavourable early clinical outcome: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Cystic adventitial disease of the popliteal artery is a rare cause of non-atheromatous claudication. It usually requires surgery to improve the distance walked by patients.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report the case of a 44-year-old Caucasian man with unilateral symptomatic popliteal cysts extending to his genicular branches and associated with multilevel stenosis of his anterior tibial artery. A surgical evacuation of the cysts successfully restored his arterial patency and led to an objective haemodynamic improvement but was associated with early recurrence of symptoms.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We suggest that the involvement of the genicular branches in cystic adventitial disease of the popliteal artery is a possible indicator of extensive adventitial degeneration and unfavourable clinical prognosis.</p

The effect of Neuragen PN® on Neuropathic pain: A randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the naturally derived topical oil, "Neuragen PN^®" for the treatment of neuropathic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sixty participants with plantar cutaneous (foot sole) pain due to all cause peripheral neuropathy were recruited from the community. Each subject was randomly assigned to receive one of two treatments (Neuragen PN^®or placebo) per week in a crossover design. The primary outcome measure was acute spontaneous pain level as reported on a visual analog scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was an overall pain reduction for both treatments from pre to post application. As compared to the placebo, Neuragen PN^®led to significantly (p < .05) greater pain reduction. Fifty six of sixty subjects (93.3%) receiving Neuragen PN^®reported pain reduction within 30 minutes. This reduction within 30 minutes occurred in only twenty one of sixty (35.0%) subjects receiving the placebo. In a break out analysis of the diabetic only subgroup, 94% of subjects in the Neuragen PN^®group achieved pain reduction within 30 minutes vs 11.0% of the placebo group. No adverse events were observed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This randomized, placebo controlled, clinical trial with crossover design revealed that the naturally derived oil, Neuragen PN^®, provided significant relief from neuropathic pain in an all cause neuropathy group. Participants with diabetes within this group experienced similar pain relief.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><b>ISRCTN registered: </b>ISRCTN13226601</p

A framework for perioperative care for lower extremity major limb amputation: A Consensus Statement by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society and Society for Vascular Surgery

The Society for Vascular Surgery elected an international, multi-disciplinary panel of experts to review the literature and provide evidence-based suggestions for coordinated peri-operative care for patients undergoing major limb amputation for limbs with non-reconstructable chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Structured around the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) core elements, 33 suggestions were made and organized into preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative sections

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p &lt; 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p &lt; 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p &lt; 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p &lt; 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p &lt; 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials

Aldosterone Antagonists in Monotherapy Are Protective against Streptozotocin-Induced Diabetic Nephropathy in Rats

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) are the standard clinical therapy of diabetic nephropathy (DN), while aldosterone antagonists are only used as adjuncts. Previously in experimental DN we showed that Na/K ATPase (NKA) is mislocated and angiotensin II leads to superimposed renal progression. Here we investigated the monotherapeutic effect of aldosterone blockers on the progression of DN and renal NKA alteration in comparison to ACEi and ARBs. Streptozotocin-diabetic rats developing DN were treated with aldosterone antagonists; ACEi and ARB. Renal function, morphology, protein level and tubular localization of NKA were analyzed. To evaluate the effect of high glucose per se; HK-2 proximal tubular cells were cultured in normal or high concentration of glucose and treated with the same agents. Aldosterone antagonists were the most effective in ameliorating functional and structural kidney damage and they normalized diabetes induced bradycardia and weight loss. Aldosterone blockers also prevented hyperglycemia and diabetes induced increase in NKA protein level and enzyme mislocation. A monotherapy with aldosterone antagonists might be as, or more effective than ACEi or ARBs in the prevention of STZ-induced DN. Furthermore the alteration of the NKA could represent a novel pathophysiological feature of DN and might serve as an additional target of aldosterone blockers

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18 -member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when &gt;70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. RESULTS: Two -hundred -forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first -round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

Objective: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement $75$80% and full disagreement &lt;5%) were included in the final document. Results: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. Conclusions: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues. (J Vasc Surg 2024;80:937-45.

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. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme