Strategy for the management of diabetic macular edema: the European Vitreo-Retinal Society macular edema study

Objective. To compare the efficacy of different therapies in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Design. Nonrandomized, multicenter clinical study. Participants. 86 retina specialists from 29 countries provided clinical information on 2,603 patients with macular edema including 870 patients with DME. Methods. Reported data included the type and number of treatment(s) performed, the pre-and posttreatment visual acuities, and other clinical findings.The results were analyzed by the French INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies). Main Outcome Measures. Mean change of visual acuity and mean number of treatments performed. Results.The change in visual acuity over time in response to each treatment was plotted in second order polynomial regression trend lines. Intravitreal triamcinolone monotherapy resulted in some improvement in vision. Treatmentwith threshold or subthreshold grid laser also resulted in minimal vision gain. Anti-VEGF therapy resulted in more significant visual improvement. Treatment with pars plana vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling alone resulted in an improvement in vision greater than that observed with anti-VEGF injection alone. In our DME study, treatment with vitrectomy and ILM peeling alone resulted in the better visual improvement compared to other therapies

Comparison of the pathways of care and life courses between first-time ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and STEMI with prior MI: findings from the OSCAR registry

International audienceObjectives We hypothesised that patients having experienced one coronary event in their life were susceptible to present differences in their pathways of care and within 1 year of their life courses. We aimed to compare pathways between first-time ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and STEMI with prior myocardial infarction (MI). Design A retrospective observational study based on the Observatoire des Syndromes Coronariens Aigus du réseau RESCUe (OSCAR) registry collecting all suspected STEMI from 10 percutaneous coronary intervention centres in France. Setting All patients with STEMI from 2013 to 2017 were included (N=6306 with 5423 first-time STEMI and 883 STEMI with prior MI). We provided a matching analysis by propensity score based on cardiovascular risk factors. Participants We defined first-time STEMI as STEMI occurring at the inclusion date, and STEMI with prior MI as STEMI with a history of MI prior to the inclusion date. Results Patients with first-time STEMI and patients with STEMI with prior MI were equally treated during hospitalisation and at discharge. At 12 months, patients with first-time STEMI had a lower adherence to BASIC treatment (ie, beta-blocker, antiplatelet therapy, statin and converting enzyme inhibitor) (48.11% vs 58.58%, p=0.0167), more frequently completed the cardiac rehabilitation programme (44.33% vs 31.72%, p=0.0029), more frequently changed their lifestyle behaviours; more frequently practiced daily physical activity (48.11% vs 35.82%, p=0.0043) and more frequently stopped smoking at admission (69.39% vs 55.00%, p=0.0524). The estimated mortality was higher for patients with STEMI with prior MI at 1 month (p=0.0100), 6 months (p=0.0500) and 1 year (p=0.0600). Conclusions We provided an exhaustive overview of the real-life clinical practice conditions of STEMI management. The patients with STEMI with prior MI presented an optimised use of prehospital resources, which was probably due to their previous experience, and showed a better adherence to drug therapy compared with patients with first-time STEMI

Management of decision of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in French EDs

International audienc

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective