62 research outputs found

    The adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score (aGAPSS) and the risk of recurrent thrombosis: Results from the APS ACTION cohort

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To assess whether patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and history of recurrent thrombosis have higher levels of adjusted Global AntiphosPholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS) when compared to patients without recurrent thrombosis. Methods: In this cross-sectional study of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)-positive patients, we identified APS patients with a history of documented thrombosis from the AntiPhospholipid Syndrome Alliance For Clinical Trials and InternatiOnal Networking (APS ACTION) Clinical Database and Repository (“Registry”). Data on aPL-related medical history and cardiovascular risk factors were retrospectively collected. The aGAPSS was calculated at Registry entry by adding the points corresponding to the risk factors: three for hyperlipidemia, one for arterial hypertension, five for positive anticardiolipin antibodies, four for positive anti-β2 glycoprotein-I antibodies and four for positive lupus anticoagulant test. Results: The analysis included 379 APS patients who presented with arterial and/or venous thrombosis. Overall, significantly higher aGAPSS were seen in patients with recurrent thrombosis (arterial or venous) compared to those without recurrence (7.8 ± 3.3 vs. 6 ± 3.9, p<0.05). When analyzed based on the site of the recurrence, patients with recurrent arterial, but not venous, thrombosis had higher aGAPSS (8.1 ± SD 2.9 vs. 6 ± 3.9; p<0.05). Conclusions: Based on analysis of our international large-scale Registry of aPL-positive patients, the aGAPSS might help risk stratifying patients based on the likelihood of developing recurrent thrombosis in APS

    Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

    Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

    Get PDF
    Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

    Perivascular macrophages in health and disease

    Get PDF
    Macrophages are a heterogeneous group of cells that are capable of carrying out distinct functions in different tissues, as well as in different locations within a given tissue. Some of these tissue macrophages lie on, or close to, the outer (abluminal) surface of blood vessels and perform several crucial activities at this interface between the tissue and the blood. In steady-state tissues, these perivascular macrophages maintain tight junctions between endothelial cells and limit vessel permeability, phagocytose potential pathogens before they enter tissues from the blood and restrict inappropriate inflammation. They also have a multifaceted role in diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer disease, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. Here, we examine the important functions of perivascular macrophages in various adult tissues and describe how these functions are perturbed in a broad array of pathological conditions

    A Unique Case of Melorheostosis Presenting with Two Radiologically Distinct Lesions in the Shoulder.

    Get PDF
    Melorheostosis is a rare, nonhereditary, benign, mesenchymal condition of unknown aetiology affecting the bones and surrounding tissues. A male patient complaining of left shoulder pain, swelling, and mildly limited range of motion has an exclusive combination of the classic dripping wax lesion in the scapula and the myositis ossificans-like lesion in the deltoid muscle; this combination is the first to be reported in the shoulder. Both lesions showed typical findings of melorheostosis in radiographs, CT, MRI, and bone scan. This case has a stationary course over the follow-up period, and no specific treatment is needed in due course

    Risk prediction models for maternal mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    No full text
    PurposePregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide therapy, and help in clinical research, no prior systematic review of this literature exploring the validity of risk prediction models for maternal mortality exists. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed risk prediction models for maternal mortality.MethodsSearch strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, from inception to May 2017. Selection criteria: Trials or observational studies evaluating risk prediction models for maternal mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data on prediction performance.ResultsThirty-eight studies that evaluated 12 different mortality prediction models were included. Mortality varied across the studies, with an average rate 10.4%, ranging from 0 to 41.7%. The Collaborative Integrated Pregnancy High-dependency Estimate of Risk (CIPHER) model and the Maternal Severity Index had the best performance, were developed and validated from studies of obstetric population with a low risk of bias. The CIPHER applies to critically ill obstetric patients (discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.811-0.835), calibration: graphic plot [intercept-0.09, slope 0.92]). The Maternal Severity Index applies to hospitalized obstetric patients (discrimination: AUC 0.826 [0.802-0.851], calibration: standardized mortality ratio 1.02 [0.86-1.20]).ConclusionsDespite the high heterogeneity of the study populations and the limited number of studies validating the finally eligible prediction models, the CIPHER and the Maternal Severity Index are recommended for use among critically ill and hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality improvement studies. Neither index has sufficient discrimination to be applicable for clinical decision making at the individual patient level
    corecore