Autophagy hijacking in PBMC From COVID-19 patients results in lymphopenia

Autophagy is a homeostatic process responsible for the self-digestion of intracellular components and antimicrobial defense by inducing the degradation of pathogens into autophagolysosomes. Recent findings suggest an involvement of this process in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the role of autophagy in the immunological mechanisms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis remains largely unexplored. This study reveals the presence of autophagy defects in peripheral immune cells from COVID-19 patients. The impairment of the autophagy process resulted in a higher percentage of lymphocytes undergoing apoptosis in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, the inverse correlation between autophagy markers levels and peripheral lymphocyte counts in COVID-19 patients confirms how a defect in autophagy might contribute to lymphopenia, causing a reduction in the activation of viral defense. These results provided intriguing data that could help in understanding the cellular underlying mechanisms in COVID-19 infection, especially in severe forms

One-year experience in carotid endarterectomy combining general anaesthesia with preserved consciousness and sequential carotid cross-clamping

Background and aim of the work: We report 1-year single-centre experience in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) combining general anaesthesia with preserved consciousness (GAPC) and standardized carotid sequential cross-clamping, for our protocol effectiveness evaluation in reduction of perioperative stroke, death or cardiologic complications. Methods: We considered all patients who underwent CEA in 2016. All patients underwent superficial cervical plexus block and GAPC with Remifentanil. The surgical technique consisted of common carotid artery (CCA) cross-clamping, carotid bifurcation isolation, external (ECA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) cross-clamping. After CCA cross-clamping, we performed a neurological tolerance test (NTT); this allowed selective shunting only for positive NTT. Primary end-points were: transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke, myocardial infarction, death in perioperative period. Secondary end-points were: carotid shunting, peripheral cranial nerves injuries (PCNI), GAPC intolerance, other complications, reintervention in perioperative period, length of hospital stay. Results: 104 consecutive patients underwent CEA with this protocol in the considered period. Twenty-seven (25.9%) patients were symptomatic. Mean clamping time was 48±13.5 minutes. Five cases (4.8%) requested internal carotid artery shunting. No TIA/stroke, myocardial infarction or death were recorded in the perioperative period. PCNI were observed in 19 cases (18.2%) in the immediate post-operative period; 16 of them (84.2%) showed complete or partial resolution at discharge. Only one patient (0.9%) showed GAPC intolerance. No other complication occurred. Three patients (2.9%) underwent reintervention for neck haematoma drainage. Mean hospital stay were 3±0.9 days. Conclusions: GAPC associated with sequential carotid cross-clamping appeared to be safe and effective in prevention of major neurological and cardiologic complications during CEA

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

Background: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. Results: Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). Conclusions: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available