17 research outputs found
Human NRD convertase: a higly conserved metalloendopeptidase expressed at specific sites during development and in adult tissue
No full textModelli di normatività. Sei lezioni sulla filosofia politica, giuridica e sociale di Habermas
No full text
Vascular Access, Complications and Survival in Incident Hemodialysis Patients
No full textThe arteriovenous fistula (AVF) has long been considered the optimal vascular access. However, the evolving characteristics of the ageing dialysis population limit the creation of an AVF in all patients. Thus, more patients start hemodialysis (HD) with a central venous catheter (CVC) rather than an AVF, and the supremacy of the AVF has recently been questioned. The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence and rate of access complications in 100 patients between 2010 and 2015. A total of 63 patients started HD with an AVF, while 37 began HD with a CVC. We found no differences in patient survival according to the vascular access in use at the beginning of dialysis, but patients were more likely to die while undergoing dialysis by means of a CVC than an AVF. Patients started on dialysis with a CVC had more cardiovascular disease, while patients who began dialysis with an AVF presented more hypertension. Fistulas presented a longer survival time despite more hospital admissions, but CVCs bore a higher risk of infections. Our results suggest that starting dialysis with a CVC does not confer a greater risk of death
Corrigendum to "Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the care of patients with acute and chronic aortic conditions" (European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (2021) 59 (1096-1102) DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa452)
No full textIn the original version of this article, the first name of author Vitaly Sorokin was misspelled. This has now been corrected above and in the full article
Infrarenal Aortic Treatment With AFX2 Endograft: Results From a Multicentric, International, Non-Randomized, Prospective Registry—the AFX2-LIVE Study
No full textIntroduction: To confirm real-world clinical practice results reported with anatomically fixed bifurcated endograft, a physician-initiated study was designed-AFX2-LIVE registry.
Materials and methods: From November 2019 to August 2021, investigators enrolled all consecutive patients treated with AFX2 (Endologix Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) endograft. Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU), and isolated infrarenal aortic dissections were included. Clinical and anatomical data, including baseline, intraoperative, and in-hospital details, as well as follow-up data, were collected in an anonymized prospectively compiled database. The primary endpoint of this study was to evaluate the technical and clinical success of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) using AFX2 endograft.
Results: A total of 535 patients were enrolled from 43 Italian and Spanish centers and analyzed according to the protocol. Four hundred eighty-nine patients were male (91.4%), with a mean age of 75±8.92 years (range 52-94). Four hundred sixty-six patients (87.1%) were treated for AAA, 49 (9.3%) for PAU, and 20 (3.6%) for isolated abdominal aortic dissection. A proximal extension was needed in 48% of the cases. Assisted technical success was achieved in all but one patient (99.8%). At 30 days follow-up, no AAA-related deaths were recorded, and nine patients (1.6%) required reintervention. At a mean follow-up period of 15.22±13.65 (range 1-53) months, data were available for 479 patients (89.5%). Clinical success was achieved in 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96.4-99.1) at 3 months, 93.9% (95% CI: 90.1-96.1) at 1 year, and 74.1% (95% CI: 62.8-82.4) at 4 years follow-up. The estimated freedom from all-cause mortality was 97.7%, 93.4%, 81.6%, 77.5%, and 70.9%, and freedom from AAA-related mortality was 100%, 99.6%, 99.6%, 99.6%, and 97.3% at 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. Twenty reinterventions (3.7%) were required in 19 patients, of which 3 late open conversions (0.6%) were performed, and 2 AAA-related deaths were observed.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated excellent clinical and technical success rates of EVAR with anatomically fixed endografts, providing valuable insights into real-world clinical outcomes
Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study
No full textBackground: 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
Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study
No full textBACKGROUND: 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 (Societa 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
