Chapter VI: Follow-up after Revascularisation

AbstractStructured follow-up after revascularisation for chronic critical limb ischaemia (CLI) aims at sustained treatment success and continued best patient care. Thereby, efforts need to address three fundamental domains: (A) best medical therapy, both to protect the arterial reconstruction locally and to reduce atherosclerotic burden systemically; (B) surveillance of the arterial reconstruction; and (C) timely initiation of repeat interventions. As most CLI patients are elderly and frail, sustained resolution of CLI and preserved ambulatory capacity may decide over independent living and overall prognosis. Despite this importance, previous guidelines have largely ignored follow-up after CLI; arguably because of a striking lack of evidence and because of a widespread assumption that, in the context of CLI, efficacy of initial revascularisation will determine prognosis during the short remaining life expectancy. This chapter of the current CLI guidelines aims to challenge this disposition and to recommend evidentially best clinical practice by critically appraising available evidence in all of the above domains, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy, clinical surveillance, use of duplex ultrasound, and indications for and preferred type of repeat interventions for failing and failed reconstructions. However, as corresponding studies are rarely performed among CLI patients specifically, evidence has to be consulted that derives from expanded patient populations. Therefore, most recommendations are based on extrapolations or subgroup analyses, which leads to an almost systematic degradation of their strength. Endovascular reconstruction and surgical bypass are considered separately, as are specific contexts such as diabetes or renal failure; and critical issues are highlighted throughout to inform future studies

Venous thromboembolism in critically Ill patients with COVID-19: Results of a screening study for deep vein thrombosis.

The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused more than 3.9 million cases worldwide. Currently, there is great interest to assess venous thrombosis prevalence, diagnosis, prevention, and management in patients with COVID-19. To determine the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients with COVID-19, using lower limbs venous ultrasonography screening. Beginning March 8, we enrolled 25 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. The presence of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was systematically assessed by ultrasonography between day 5 and 10 after admission. The data reported here are those available up to May 9, 2020. The mean (± standard deviation) age of the patients was 68 ± 11 years, and 64% were men. No patients had a history of VTE. During the ICU stay, 8 patients (32%) had a VTE; 6 (24%) a proximal DVT, and 5 (20%) a pulmonary embolism. The rate of symptomatic VTE was 24%, while 8% of patients had screen-detected DVT. Only those patients with a documented VTE received a therapeutic anticoagulant regimen. As of May 9, 2020, 5 patients had died (20%), 2 remained in the ICU (8%), and 18 were discharged (72%). In critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, DVT screening at days 5-10 of admission yielded a 32% prevalence of VTE. Seventy-five percent of events occurred before screening. Earlier screening might be effective in optimizing care in ICU patients with COVID-19

Enoxaparin for symptomatic COVID-19 managed in the ambulatory setting: An individual patient level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC trials.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic treatment may improve the disease course in non-critically ill, symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: We performed an individual patient-level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC randomized controlled trials, which compared enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for either 14 (OVID) or 21 days (ETHIC) vs. no thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one additional risk factor. The primary efficacy outcome included all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death within 30 days from randomization. Both studies were prematurely stopped for futility. Secondary efficacy outcomes were major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, arterial cardiovascular events, or their composite occurring within 30 days from randomization. The same outcomes were assessed over a 90-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria). RESULTS: A total of 691 patients were randomized: 339 to receive enoxaparin and 352 to the control group. Over 30-day follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.0 % of patients in the enoxaparin group vs. 5.8 % of controls for a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95%CI 0.57-1.92). The incidence of major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events was 0.9 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively (RR 0.52; 95%CI 0.13-2.06). Most cardiovascular thromboembolic events were represented by symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, occurring in 0.6 % vs. 1.5 % of patients, respectively. A similar distribution of outcomes between the treatment groups was observed over 90 days. No major bleeding occurred in the enoxaparin group vs. one (0.3 %) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical benefit of early administration of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. These results should be interpreted taking into consideration the relatively low occurrence of events

Putative psychosis genes in the prefrontal cortex: combined analysis of gene expression microarrays

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent studies have shown similarities between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in phenotypes and in genotypes, and those studies have contributed to an ongoing re-evaluation of the traditional dichotomy between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder with psychotic features may be closely related to schizophrenia and therefore, psychosis may be an alternative phenotype compared to the traditional diagnosis categories.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a cross-study analysis of 7 gene expression microarrays that include both psychosis and non-psychosis subjects. These studies include over 400 microarray samples (163 individual subjects) on 3 different Affymetrix microarray platforms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that 110 transcripts are differentially regulated (p < 0.001) in psychosis after adjusting for confounding variables with a multiple regression model. Using a quantitative PCR, we validated a set of genes such as up-regulated metallothioneins (MT1E, MT1F, MT1H, MT1K, MT1X, MT2A and MT3) and down-regulated neuropeptides (SST, TAC1 and NPY) in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of psychosis patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study demonstrates the advantages of cross-study analysis in detecting consensus changes in gene expression across multiple microarray studies. Differential gene expression between individuals with and without psychosis suggests that psychosis may be a useful phenotypic variable to complement the traditional diagnosis categories.</p

Diagnostic de l’embolie pulmonaire

International audienc