Antiphospholipid-related chorea

Chorea can be associated with autoimmune diseases such as antiphospholipid syndrome and has been associated with the isolated presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Chorea is a rare neurological manifestation of antiphospholipid syndrome. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying aPL-related chorea are still debated. One postulated mechanism is aPL or other autoantibody binding to brain-blood vessel endothelium, resulting in endothelial dysfunction secondary to a proinflammatory cascade, with sequalae of inflammation and local microthrombosis. Another postulated mechanism considers immune-mediated attack (aPL or antibasal ganglia antibodies) against specific basal ganglia epitopes. Here, we report a patient with isolated aPL-related chorea that followed a relapsing-remitting course. We highlight the role of brain metabolic imaging with fluorodeoxy glucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnostic workup of chorea and the challenges in the practical management of aPL-related chorea with symptomatic treatments

Post-thrombotic Syndrome: Preventative and Risk Reduction Strategies Following Deep Vein Thrombosis

Venous disease is common in the general population, with chronic venous disorders affecting 50–85% of the western population and consuming 2–3% of healthcare funding. It, therefore, represents a significant socioeconomic, physical and psychological burden. Acute deep vein thrombosis, although a well-recognised cause of death through pulmonary embolism, can more commonly lead to post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). This article summarises the pathophysiology and risk factor profile of PTS, and highlights various strategies that may reduce the risk of PTS, and the endovenous management of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. The authors summarise the advances in PTS risk reduction strategies and present the latest evidence for discussion

Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating the post‐COVID‐19 condition

Background The post‐COVID‐19 condition (PCC) consists of a wide array of symptoms including fatigue and impaired daily living. People seek a wide variety of approaches to help them recover. A new belief, arising from a few laboratory studies, is that 'microclots' cause the symptoms of PCC. This belief has been extended outside these studies, suggesting that to recover people need plasmapheresis (an expensive process where blood is filtered outside the body). We appraised the laboratory studies, and it was clear that the term 'microclots' is incorrect to describe the phenomenon being described. The particles are amyloid and include fibrin(ogen); amyloid is not a part of a thrombus which is a mix of fibrin mesh and platelets. Initial acute COVID‐19 infection is associated with clotting abnormalities; this review concerns amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC only. We have reported here our appraisal of laboratory studies investigating the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC, and of evidence that plasmapheresis may be an effective therapy to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. Objectives Laboratory studies review To summarize and appraise the research reports on amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles related to PCC. Randomized controlled trials review To assess the evidence of the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in individuals with PCC from randomized controlled trials. Search methods Laboratory studies review We searched for all relevant laboratory studies up to 27 October 2022 using a comprehensive search strategy which included the search terms ‘COVID’, ‘amyloid’, ‘fibrin’, ‘fibrinogen’. Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases on 21 October 2022: Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. Selection criteria Laboratory studies review Laboratory studies that investigate the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in plasma samples from patients with PCC were eligible. This included studies with or without controls. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of plasmapheresis for removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. Data collection and analysis Two review authors applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Laboratory studies review We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using pre‐developed methods for laboratory studies. We planned to perform synthesis without meta‐analysis (SWiM) as described in our protocol. Randomized controlled trials review We planned that if we identified any eligible studies, we would assess risk of bias and report results with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was recovery, measured using the Post‐COVID‐19 Functional Status Scale (absence of symptoms related to the illness, ability to do usual daily activities, and a return to a previous state of health and mind). Main results Laboratory studies review We identified five laboratory studies. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across all studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls. Randomized controlled trials review We identified no trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions In the absence of reliable research showing that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles contribute to the pathophysiology of PCC, there is no rationale for plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC. Plasmapheresis for this indication should not be used outside the context of a well‐conducted randomized controlled trial

Correction: Management of bleeding following major trauma: a European guideline

SCOPUS: er.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Graduated compression stockings as adjuvant to pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis in elective surgical patients (GAPS study): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the use of graduated compression stockings (GCS) offers any adjuvant benefit when pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis is used for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective surgery. DESIGN: Open, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Seven National Health Service tertiary hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 1905 elective surgical inpatients (≥18 years) assessed as being at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism were eligible and consented to participate. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis alone or LMWH pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis and GCS. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was imaging confirmed lower limb deep vein thrombosis with or without symptoms, or pulmonary embolism with symptoms within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life, compliance with stockings and LMWH, lower limb complications related to GCS, bleeding complications, adverse reactions to LMWH, and all cause mortality. RESULTS: Between May 2016 and January 2019, 1905 participants were randomised. 1858 were included in the intention to treat analysis (17 were identified as ineligible after randomisation and 30 did not undergo surgery). A primary outcome event occurred in 16 of 937 (1.7%) patients in the LMWH alone group compared with 13 of 921 (1.4%) in the LMWH and GCS group. The risk difference between the two groups was 0.30% (95% confidence interval -0.65% to 1.26%). Because the 95% confidence interval did not cross the non-inferiority margin of 3.5% (P<0.001 for non-inferiority), LMWH alone was confirmed to be non-inferior. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who have elective surgery and are at moderate or high risk of venous thromboembolism, administration of pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis alone is non-inferior to a combination of pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis and GCS. These findings indicate that GCS might be unnecessary in most patients undergoing elective surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13911492