31 research outputs found
Adults with growth hormone deficiency have subclinical left ventricular dysfunction without vascular dysfunction, suggesting intrinsic myocardial disease
No full textWet-suction versus slow-pull technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial
No full textBackground and study aims: Whether there is an advantage in using the wet-suction (WS) or slow-pull (SP) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new generation needles is unknown. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB performed with WS versus SP technique. Patients and methods: Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, cross-over trial including patients with solid lesions ≥1cm. Four needle passes with 22G Fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating WS and SP technique in a randomized order. The primary aim was the histologic yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550μm). Secondary endpoints were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction. Results: Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4%) and 129 (61.4%) cases using the WS and the SP, respectively (p=0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using the WS (p=0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (p<0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but with higher blood contamination with the WS. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the compared techniques. Conclusion: Overall, the WS technique in EUS-FNB allows a higher tissue core rate procurement compared with SP. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques
Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients: the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) guidelines
No full textDealing with acute cholecystitis in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients is frequent during daily practice and requires complex management. Several procedures exist to postpone and/or prevent surgical intervention in those patients who temporarily or definitively cannot undergo surgery. After a systematic review of the literature, an expert panel from the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) discussed the different issues and statements in subsequent rounds. The final version of the statements was discussed during the annual meeting in Rome (September 2022). The present paper presents the definitive conclusions of the discussion. Fifteen statements based on the literature evidence were provided. The statements gave precise indications regarding the decisional process and the management of patients who cannot temporarily or definitively undergo cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients should be multidisciplinary. The different gallbladder drainage methods must be tailored according to each patient and based on the expertise of the hospital. Percutaneous gallbladder drainage is recommended as the first choice as a bridge to surgery or in severely physiologically deranged patients. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (cholecystoduodenostomy and cholecystogastrostomy) is suggested as a second-line alternative especially as a definitive procedure for those patients not amenable to surgical management. Trans-papillary gallbladder drainage is the last option to be reserved only to those unfit for other techniques. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with percutaneous gallbladder drainage is suggested in all those patients recovering from the conditions that previously discouraged surgical intervention after at least 6 weeks from the gallbladder drainage
Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients: the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) guidelines
No full textDealing with acute cholecystitis in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients is frequent during daily practice and requires complex management. Several procedures exist to postpone and/or prevent surgical intervention in those patients who temporarily or definitively cannot undergo surgery. After a systematic review of the literature, an expert panel from the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) discussed the different issues and statements in subsequent rounds. The final version of the statements was discussed during the annual meeting in Rome (September 2022). The present paper presents the definitive conclusions of the discussion. Fifteen statements based on the literature evidence were provided. The statements gave precise indications regarding the decisional process and the management of patients who cannot temporarily or definitively undergo cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients should be multidisciplinary. The different gallbladder drainage methods must be tailored according to each patient and based on the expertise of the hospital. Percutaneous gallbladder drainage is recommended as the first choice as a bridge to surgery or in severely physiologically deranged patients. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (cholecystoduodenostomy and cholecystogastrostomy) is suggested as a second-line alternative especially as a definitive procedure for those patients not amenable to surgical management. Trans-papillary gallbladder drainage is the last option to be reserved only to those unfit for other techniques. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with percutaneous gallbladder drainage is suggested in all those patients recovering from the conditions that previously discouraged surgical intervention after at least 6 weeks from the gallbladder drainage
Do we need contrast agents for EUS?
No full textWe recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view
Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease
No full textBACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events
Diagnosis and treatment in chronic pancreatitis: an international survey and case vignette study
No full textBackground: The aim of the study was to evaluate the current opinion and clinical decision-making process of international pancreatologists, and to systematically identify key study questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis (CP) for future research.Methods: An online survey, including questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CP and several controversial clinical case vignettes, was send by e-mail to members of various international pancreatic associations: IHPBA, APA, EPC, ESGE and DPSG.Results: A total of 288 pancreatologists, 56% surgeons and 44% gastroenterologists, from at least 47 countries, participated in the survey. About half (48%) of the specialists used a classification tool for the diagnosis of CP, including the Mayo Clinic (28%), Mannheim (25%), or Buchler (25%) tools. Overall, CT was the preferred imaging modality for evaluation of an enlarged pancreatic head (59%), pseudocyst (55%), calcifications (75%), and peripancreatic fat infiltration (68%). MRI was preferred for assessment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) abnormalities (60%). Total pancreatectomy with auto-islet transplantation was the preferred treatment in patients with parenchymal calcifications without MPD abnormalities and in patients with refractory pain despite maximal medical, endoscopic, and surgical treatment. In patients with an enlarged pancreatic head, 58% preferred initial surgery (PPPD) versus 42% initial endoscopy. In patients with a dilated MPD and intraductal stones 56% preferred initial endoscopic +/- ESWL treatment and 29% preferred initial surgical treatment.Conclusion: Worldwide, clinical decision-making in CP is largely based on local expertise, beliefs and disbeliefs. Further development of evidence-based guidelines based on well designed (randomized) studies is strongly encouraged
Impact of renal impairment on atrial fibrillation: ESC-EHRA EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry
No full textBackground: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and renal impairment share a bidirectional relationship with important pathophysiological interactions. We evaluated the impact of renal impairment in a contemporary cohort of patients with AF. Methods: We utilised the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry. Outcomes were analysed according to renal function by CKD-EPI equation. The primary endpoint was a composite of thromboembolism, major bleeding, acute coronary syndrome and all-cause death. Secondary endpoints were each of these separately including ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic event, intracranial haemorrhage, cardiovascular death and hospital admission. Results: A total of 9306 patients were included. The distribution of patients with no, mild, moderate and severe renal impairment at baseline were 16.9%, 49.3%, 30% and 3.8%, respectively. AF patients with impaired renal function were older, more likely to be females, had worse cardiac imaging parameters and multiple comorbidities. Among patients with an indication for anticoagulation, prescription of these agents was reduced in those with severe renal impairment, p <.001. Over 24 months, impaired renal function was associated with significantly greater incidence of the primary composite outcome and all secondary outcomes. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated an inverse relationship between eGFR and the primary outcome (HR 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01–1.14] per 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrease), that was most notable in patients with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 (HR 2.21 [95% CI, 1.23–3.99] compared to eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2). Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients with AF suffer from concomitant renal impairment which impacts their overall management. Furthermore, renal impairment is an independent predictor of major adverse events including thromboembolism, major bleeding, acute coronary syndrome and all-cause death in patients with AF
Clinical utility and prognostic implications of the novel 4S-AF scheme to characterize and evaluate patients with atrial fibrillation: a report from ESC-EHRA EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry
No full textAims: The 4S-AF classification scheme comprises of four domains: stroke risk (St), symptoms (Sy), severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (Sb), and substrate (Su). We sought to examine the implementation of the 4S-AF scheme in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry and compare outcomes in AF patients according to the 4S-AF-led decision-making process. Methods and results: Atrial fibrillation patients from 250 centres across 27 European countries were included. A 4S-AF score was calculated as the sum of each domain with a maximum score of 9. Of 6321 patients, 8.4% had low (St), 47.5% EHRA I (Sy), 40.5% newly diagnosed or paroxysmal AF (Sb), and 5.1% no cardiovascular risk factors or left atrial enlargement (Su). Median follow-up was 24 months. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality were (St) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 8.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60-25.9], (Sb) (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08-1.35), and (Su) (aHR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14-1.41). For CV mortality and any thromboembolic event, only (Su) (aHR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.45-2.06) and (Sy) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.00-1.66) were statistically significant, respectively. None of the domains were independently linked to ischaemic stroke or major bleeding. Higher 4S-AF score was related to a significant increase in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, any thromboembolic event, and ischaemic stroke but not major bleeding. Treatment of all 4S-AF domains was associated with an independent decrease in all-cause mortality (aHR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55-0.92). For each 4S-AF domain left untreated, the risk of all-cause mortality increased substantially (aHR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16-1.56). Conclusion: Implementation of the novel 4S-AF scheme is feasible, and treatment decisions based on this scheme improve mortality rates in AF
