164 research outputs found

    A Multi-disciplinary Commentary on Preclinical Research to investigate Vascular Contributions to Dementia

    Get PDF
    Although dementia research has been dominated by Alzheimer's disease (AD), most dementia in older people is now recognised to be due to mixed pathologies, usually combining vascular and AD brain pathology. Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI), which encompasses vascular dementia (VaD) is the second most common type of dementia. Models of VCI have been delayed by limited understanding of the underlying aetiology and pathogenesis. This review by a multidisciplinary, diverse (in terms of sex, geography and career stage), cross-institute team provides a perspective on limitations to current VCI models and recommendations for improving translation and reproducibility. We discuss reproducibility, clinical features of VCI and corresponding assessments in models, human pathology, bioinformatics approaches, and data sharing. We offer recommendations for future research, particularly focusing on small vessel disease as a main underpinning disorder

    Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia: An early career researcher perspective

    No full text
    The field of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) is evolving rapidly. Research in VCID encompasses topics aiming to understand, prevent, and treat the detrimental effects of vascular disease burden in the human brain. In this perspective piece, early career researchers in the field provide an overview of VCID, discuss past and present efforts, and highlight priorities for future research. We emphasize the following critical points as the field progresses: a) consolidate existing neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers, and establish their utility for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions; b) develop new biomarkers, and new non-clinical models that better recapitulate vascular pathologies; c) amplify access to emerging biomarker and imaging techniques; d) validate findings from previous investigations in diverse populations, including those at higher risk of cognitive impairment (e.g., Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous populations); and e) conduct randomized controlled trials within diverse populations with well-characterized vascular pathologies emphasizing clinically meaningful outcomes

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

    Get PDF
    AimThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOverall, 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 ConclusionOne 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

    Strokectomy for malignant middle cerebral artery infarction: experience and meta-analysis of current evidence

    Get PDF
    Strokectomy means surgical excision of infarcted brain tissue post-stroke with preservation of skull integrity, distinguishing it from decompressive hemicraniectomy. Both can mitigate malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) syndrome but evidence regarding strokectomy is sparse. Here, we report our data and meta-analysis of strokectomy compared to hemicraniectomy for malignant MCA infarction. All malignant MCA stroke cases requiring surgical intervention in a large tertiary centre (January 2012–December 2017, N = 24) were analysed for craniotomy diameter, complications, length of follow-up and outcome measured using the modified Rankin score (mRS). Good outcome was defined as mRS 0–3 at 12 months. In a meta-analysis, outcome from strokectomy (pooled from our cohort and published strokectomy studies) was compared with hemicraniectomy (our cohort pooled with published DECIMAL, DESTINY and HAMLET clinical trial data). In our series (N = 24, 12/12 F/M; mean age: 45.83 ± 8.91, range 29–63 years), 4 patients underwent strokectomy (SC) and 20 hemicraniectomy (HC). Among SC patients, craniotomy diameter was smaller, relative to HC patients (86 ± 13.10 mm, 120 ± 4.10 mm, respectively; p = 0.003), complications were less common (25%, 55%) and poor outcomes were less common (25%, 70%). In the pooled data (N = 41 SC, 71 HC), strokectomy tended towards good outcome more than hemicraniectomy (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.99–4.7; p = 0.051). In conclusion, strokectomy may be non-inferior, lower risk and cost saving relative to hemicraniectomy sufficiently to be worthy of further investigation and maybe a randomised trial