A New Synthetic Conduit for the Treatment of Peripheral Nerve Injuries

Background Peripheral nerve defects (PND) often cause lifelong physical disability, and the available treatment options are often not satisfactory. PND are usually bridged with an autologous nerve transplant or a nerve guidance conduit (NGC), when coaptation as preferred technique is not possible. The aim of this experimental study was to determine the effectiveness of a novel NGC for regeneration in the treatment of PND. Materials and methods A conduit made of gelatin with an innovative interior structure was tested for the repair of a 6-mm gap versus direct microsurgical suture repair without gap. Results We found that bridging the defect with this conduit was as effective as direct microsurgical coaptation without a defect. Conclusions This nerve conduit, effective in bridging neural defects, appears as an alternative to autologous nerve grafts, avoiding the problems related to nerve graft harvesting, host–donor differences in diameter, mismatches in number and pattern of fascicles, cross-sectional shape and area, and morbidity of the donor area

De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (DeltaEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (DeltaNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (DeltaQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Database-CRD42016043747

Association between Clinical Frailty Scale score and hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 (COMET): an international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. Methods: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1–3), mildly frail (CFS4–5), or frail (CFS6–9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). Findings: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55–77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04–3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·54 [1·16–2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 2·90 [2·12–3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·64 [1·20–2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 2·22 [1·08–4·57], p=0·030; CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·08 [0·48–2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·54 [1·21–1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 0·71 [0·55–0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 2·96 [1·98–4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 0·93 [0·63–1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·27 [0·92–1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 0·66 [0·47–0·93], p=0·018). Interpretation: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution. Funding: LOEY Foundation