Point-of-care hemostasis in children with congenital heart disease, the POCHEMO study : baseline reference values of thromboelastometry and impedance aggregometry

: Viscoelastic tests and impedance aggregometry allow coagulation evaluation at the bedside, but reference values are scarce in pediatrics. The aim of this study was to establish reference values of thromboelastometry and impedance aggregometry for this population and compare it between age groups. This prospective, single-center, observational study evaluates viscoelastic tests and impedance aggregometry in children with congenital heart disease. A total of 204 children were included with a median age of 3.6 years old. We provide references values for this population with median, percentile 2.5 and percentile 97.5. Infants demonstrate for extrinsic activity a shorter coagulation time (52 [49-55] vs. 56 [51-62] s, P = 0.007) and clot formation time (90 [71-118] vs. 113 [93-146] s, P < 0.0001) so as for intrinsic activity a shorter clot formation time (53 [44-69] vs. 75 [59-92] s, P < 0.0001). The maximal clot firmness was significantly stronger in infants for extrinsic (65 [61-69] vs. 59 [54-63] mm, P < 0.0001), intrinsic (68 [64-70] vs. 61 [57-65] mm, P < 0.0001), and fibrinogen (12 [9-16] vs. 10 [8-13] mm, P = 0.02) activities. Platelet aggregation was significantly higher in infants with an amplitude at 6 min of 28 [23-34] vs. 22 [15-27] Ω, P less than 0.0001, a maximum speed of 11 [9-13] vs. 7 [5-10] Ω/min, P less than 0.0001, and an area under the curve of 120 [92-135] vs. 86 [59-112] Ω min, P less than 0.0001. We provided the first reference values for impedance aggregometry and thromboelastometry in children with congenital heart disease. We showed that these infants tend to have accelerated coagulation and stronger clot firmness compared with older children, but this finding may have only minimal relevance when treating a bleeding child. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02387944)

Description of a European memory clinic cohort undergoing amyloid-PET: The AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study

INTRODUCTION: AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study (DPMS) aims to investigate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of amyloid-PET in Europe. Here we present participants' baseline features and discuss the representativeness of the cohort. METHODS: Participants with subjective cognitive decline plus (SCD+), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were recruited in eight European memory clinics from April 16, 2018, to October 30, 2020, and randomized into three arms: ARM1, early amyloid-PET; ARM2, late amyloid-PET; and ARM3, free-choice. RESULTS: A total of 840 participants (244 SCD+, 341 MCI, and 255 dementia) were enrolled. Sociodemographic/clinical features did not differ significantly among recruiting memory clinics or with previously reported cohorts. The randomization assigned 35% of participants to ARM1, 32% to ARM2, and 33% to ARM3; cognitive stages were distributed equally across the arms. DISCUSSION: The features of AMYPAD-DPMS participants are as expected for a memory clinic population. This ensures the generalizability of future study results

Description of a European memory clinic cohort undergoing amyloid-PET: The AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study

Introduction AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study (DPMS) aims to investigate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of amyloid-PET in Europe. Here we present participants' baseline features and discuss the representativeness of the cohort. Methods Participants with subjective cognitive decline plus (SCD+), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were recruited in eight European memory clinics from April 16, 2018, to October 30, 2020, and randomized into three arms: ARM1, early amyloid-PET; ARM2, late amyloid-PET; and ARM3, free-choice. Results A total of 840 participants (244 SCD+, 341 MCI, and 255 dementia) were enrolled. Sociodemographic/clinical features did not differ significantly among recruiting memory clinics or with previously reported cohorts. The randomization assigned 35% of participants to ARM1, 32% to ARM2, and 33% to ARM3; cognitive stages were distributed equally across the arms. Discussion The features of AMYPAD-DPMS participants are as expected for a memory clinic population. This ensures the generalizability of future study results