Role of early extraction of odontogenic focus in deep neck infections

Odontogenic deep neck infections remain a common condition that presents a challenging issue due to the complex involvement of the neck and adjacent structures and its potential life-threatening risk. Periapical infection of the second or third molar with spread to the submandibular and parapharyngeal spaces is the most commonly observed scenario. However, the time of dental extraction of the infection focus remains controversial. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the epidemiology, clinical and radiological features, and management in patients diagnosed with ODNI and to identify the role of early dental extraction on patient outcomes and recovery. This retrospective study included patients over 18 years old with a diagnosis of ODNI who were admitted to the University Hospital ?Dr Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez? from January 2017 to January 2022. ODNI diagnosis was based on clinical and radiological evidence of the disease supplemented by dental and maxillofacial evaluation for an odontogenic aetiology. A total of 68 patients were included in the study. The patients? mean age was 40.96 ± 14.9. Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity. The submandibular space was the most common deep neck space involved (n=59, 86.8%). Mediastinitis, marginal nerve injury and orocervical fistula were observed in 7.5% of patients, with no fatality in this series. A delay of >3 days for dental extraction of the involved tooth was associated with an increased rate of mediastinitis (n=3, 100%, p= 0.022), number of surgical interventions (1.45 ± 0.61, p= 0.006), ICU stay (n=8, 40%, p= 0.019), and ICU length of stay (0.85 ± 0.8, p= 0.001). Expedited management with surgical drainage and intravenous antibiotic treatment, along with early extraction of the involved tooth, is mandatory

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

A Survey of Empirical Results on Program Slicing

International audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding