Improving Outcomes After Relapse in Ewing's Sarcoma: Analysis of 114 Patients From a Single Institution

The outcome for patients with relapsed Ewing's sarcoma is poor. A retrospective analysis was carried out to identify factors associated with improved survival. Between 1992 and 2002, 114 patients presented with relapsed or progressive disease. Median time to progression/relapse was 13 months (range, 2–128). Treatment at relapse included high dose treatment (HDT) in 29 patients, and surgery or definitive radiotherapy in 29. 2 and 5-year post relapse survival (PRS) was 23.5% and 15.2%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the most significant factors associated with improved survival were disease confined locally or to the lungs (2-year PRS, 40% versus 6%; P < .001), relapse > 18 months from diagnosis (2-year PRS, 53% versus 8%; P < .001), HDT at relapse (2-year PRS, 62% versus 11%; P < .001), and surgery and/or radiotherapy at relapse (2-year PRS, 51% versus 14%; P < .001). First treatment failure in Ewing's sarcoma is mostly fatal. Improved survival can be achieved in selective patients with aggressive treatment. These improvements are confined to those without bone or bone marrow metastases

Preliminary six-month outcomes of LIMBSAVE (treatment of critical Limb IscheMia with infragenicular Bypass adopting in situ SAphenous VEin technique) registry

Objectives: Guidelines recommend open bypass surgery for long occlusions of infrainguinal arteries. In situ saphenous vein bypass is a standardized technique. The aim of this study was to report preliminary six-month outcomes of a national, multicenter, observational, prospective registry based on the examination of treatment of critical Limb IscheMia with infragenicular Bypass adopting the in situ SAphenous VEin technique (LIMBSAVE). Methods: From January 2018 until October 2019, 428 patients from 41 centers were enrolled in the LIMBSAVE registry. Data were prospectively collected in a dedicated database, including demographics, preoperative risk factors, clinical and diagnostic preoperative assessments, intraoperative measures (including safety and effectiveness of the valvulotome during the surgical procedures), and 30-day follow-up data. Furthermore, estimated six-month outcomes according to Kaplan\u2013Meier curves in terms of primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage were evaluated. Results: Patients were predominantly male (n = 332, 77.6%) with a mean age of 73.3 years (range 39\u201395). Technical success, defined as bypass pulse after use of the valvulotome, was obtained in all cases. The proximal anastomosis could be reached by the valvulotome in all cases. The mean number of valvulotome uses was 2.5 (range 1\u20135). No vein perforation was reported. In nine cases (2.1%), a vein lesion with intramural hemorrhage occurred. The mean length of hospital stay was 11.1 days (range 1\u201360). At 30-day follow-up, the overall bypass patency rate was 97.4%, and the rate of open or endo reinterventions for failing bypass was 5.4%. At six-month follow-up, the estimated primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage were 78.1%, 86.2%, 92.1%, and 94.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Preliminary intraprocedural outcomes of the LIMBSAVE registry show that the in situ technique with the valvulotome is safe and effective in disrupting valves and obtaining pulsatility in the saphenous vein. The complication rate related to the use of the valvulotome is low. The six-month preliminary outcomes in terms of overall patency and limb salvage are promising. Further examinations and continuous follow-up are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes

The "Woundosome" Concept and Its Impact on Procedural Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

This editorial assembles endovascular specialists from diverse clinical backgrounds and nationalities with a global call to address key challenges to enhance revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients.- Dedicated below-the-ankle (BTA) angiography and revascularization is underutilized in ischemic foot treatment. Existing guidelines do not address comprehensive BTA vessel analysis. CLTI trials also often lack data on in-line arterial flow to the ischemic lesion and BTA vessel evaluation, hindering outcome assessment.- Dedicated multi-planar angiographic evaluation of the distal microcirculation is key: Direct arterial flow or good-quality collaterals are crucial in influencing wound healing and need to be assessed diligently to the level of the distal ischemic wound territory, termed “woundosome.”- An important primary emphasis of future trials should be on validating technologies and strategies for assessing tissue perfusion before, during, and after revascularization undertaken to heal tissue loss in CLTI patients. This will allow determination of a potentially significant delta in tissue perfusion prior to and following intervention at the “woundosome” level. Once changes in arterial perfusion have been identified as positively correlated to wound healing, these could serve as a much-needed novel primary technical outcome measure for patients with tissue loss undergoing surgical, hybrid, or endovascular revascularization

RIvaroxaban and VAscular Surgery (RIVAS): insights from a multicenter, worldwide web-based survey

no abstract availabl

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 (Società 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 ≥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

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

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use