RESUMEN
Emerging evidence shows that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be complicated with coagulopathy, namely disseminated intravascular coagulation, which has a rather prothrombotic character with high risk of venous thromboembolism. The incidence of venous thromboembolism among COVID-19 patients in intensive care units appears to be somewhat higher compared to that reported in other studies including such patients with other disease conditions. D-dimer might help in early recognition of these high-risk patients and also predict outcome. Preliminary data show that in patients with severe COVID-19, anticoagulant therapy appears to be associated with lower mortality in the subpopulation meeting sepsis-induced coagulopathy criteria or with markedly elevated d-dimer. Recent recommendations suggest that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients should receive thromboprophylaxis, or full therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation if such an indication is present.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Productos de Degradación de Fibrina-Fibrinógeno/metabolismo , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Tromboembolia Venosa , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/sangre , Infecciones por Coronavirus/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Coagulación Intravascular Diseminada/sangre , Coagulación Intravascular Diseminada/tratamiento farmacológico , Coagulación Intravascular Diseminada/epidemiología , Coagulación Intravascular Diseminada/virología , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Neumonía Viral/sangre , Neumonía Viral/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Tromboembolia Venosa/sangre , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/virologíaRESUMEN
Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of malignancy. Lung cancer is considered one of the most thrombogenic cancer types. Primary thromboprophylaxis is not currently recommended for all ambulatory patients with active cancer. In the present narrative review we aim to summarize recent data on the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis as well as on venous thromboembolism risk assessment, focusing on ambulatory patients with lung cancer. A potential benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparins in terms of venous thromboembolism risk reduction and increased overall survival in patients with lung cancer, without a significant increase in bleeding risk, has been reported in several studies. Recent studies also reveal promising results of direct oral anticoagulants regarding their efficacy as primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer, including those with lung cancer. However, the use of different study methodologies and the heterogeneity of study populations among the trials limit the extraction of definite results. More randomized, controlled trials, restricted to a well-characterized population of patients with lung cancer, are greatly anticipated. The use of risk assessment tools for stratification of venous thromboembolic risk is warranted. The development of an accurate and practical risk assessment model for patients with lung cancer represents an unmet need.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Coagulación Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & control , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/sangre , Neoplasias Pulmonares/complicaciones , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Selección de Paciente , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Tromboembolia Venosa/sangre , Tromboembolia Venosa/diagnóstico , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: One of the factors contributing to complications related to open repair of the aorta is the construction of a hand-sewn anastomosis. Aortic anastomotic devices (AADs), such as the intraluminal ringed graft (IRG), and the anastomotic stenting technique have been developed to perform a sutureless and less complicated anastomosis. This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature reporting clinical use of AADs and aimed to assess, primarily, the effect of each device on 30-day overall and operation-related mortality and aortic cross-clamping time and, secondarily, the rate of successful two-sided application of the IRG device and the operation-related morbidity for each device. METHODS: An electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library by two independent authors. Our exclusion criteria included studies incorporating fewer than three patients and studies reporting results solely from animals or in vitro testing, results solely from end-to-side anastomosis, and results solely from endarterectomy procedures. The last search date was February 1, 2018. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were identified that reported outcomes for the use of three different device types: IRG, anastomotic stenting technique, and surgical staplers. The last two types were classified together as the non-IRG group. The meta-analysis included 27 studies with 50 cohorts incorporating 1260 patients. The median age of the incorporated patients was 61.4 years (range, 51-73 years), and 68.9% were male. The operations were performed for the treatment of acute aortic dissection in 82.3%. The pooled overall 30-day mortality rate varied by device type; IRG devices had a mean rate of all-cause mortality of 9.71%, whereas non-IRG devices were associated with a significantly (I2 = 15.78%; P for Cochrane Q test < .19) lower rate of death (1.47%). The pooled mean aortic cross-clamping time was 35.83 minutes. Metaregression showed that the performance of two-sided anastomosis with the IRG device significantly decreased the aortic cross-clamping time. However, a successful two-sided ringed anastomosis was performed in approximately half of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account that the majority of operations were performed for the treatment of acute aortic dissection, AADs had a relatively low rate of 30-day mortality. Despite the observed heterogeneity in study protocols and the small sample size in the non-IRG group, the non-IRG group presented with the lowest 30-day mortality rate. Specific device-related complications between the different device types need further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Aorta/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/instrumentación , Prótesis Vascular , Stents , Anciano , Anastomosis Quirúrgica , Aorta/diagnóstico por imagen , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/mortalidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Diseño de Prótesis , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Grapado Quirúrgico , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos sin Sutura , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Three-dimensional (3D) printing has rapidly evolved, with major applications in the field of medicine. One of the greatest advances leading to 3D bioprinting was the development of biomaterials, cells and supporting components for the fabrication of functional living tissues. Several different methods and techniques of 3D bioprinting are briefly described in this review article, and applications of 3D printing for the fabrication of artificial blood vessels and grafts are presented. Advances in additive manufacturing techniques, medical imaging modalities, biomaterials and cellular engineering will lead to further developments in the fabrication of patient-specific vascular tissue constructs. Future multidisciplinary research and innovations are expected to further transform the fields of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
RESUMEN
Aim: To compare the protein-protein interactions of antibodies targeting PD-1 and its ligand (PD-L1) with their targets in an attempt to explain the antibodies' binding affinity. Materials & methods: The structural features of complexes between pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, avelumab and PD-1/PD-L1 are described, with the use of software and based on crystallographic data. Results: Pembrolizumab has more structural features, including the number and type of the bonds and total binding surface area, which could rationalize its different clinical behavior compared with nivolumab. Similarly, protein-protein interactions with PD-L1 differ among durvalumab, atezolizumab and avelumab. Conclusion: Differential protein-protein interactions between antibodies and PD-1/PD-L1 may indicate differential clinical activity; however, further research is needed to provide evidence.
This study looked at different immunotherapy drugs used to treat cancer. These drugs bind to two different proteins, called PD-1 and PD-L1, that are part of our immune system. These proteins usually act as brakes in our immune system. The drugs block the brakes, which boosts the immune system and improves the immune defense against cancer. Using computer images, the authors compared how each drug binds to PD-1/PD-L1. The results showed that these drugs bind to PD-1 and PD-L1 with different chemical bonds. These bonds can be smaller or larger depending on the drug. The drugs' different chemical bonds with PD-1/PD-L1 might show that they do not act exactly the same when they are given to patients. However, further studies are needed for more information.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Antígeno B7-H1 , Modelos Moleculares , Receptor de Muerte Celular Programada 1 , Antígeno B7-H1/química , Antígeno B7-H1/metabolismo , Receptor de Muerte Celular Programada 1/química , Receptor de Muerte Celular Programada 1/metabolismo , Unión Proteica , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/química , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/metabolismo , Estructura Cuaternaria de Proteína , Cristalografía por Rayos X , Simulación por Computador , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to record and assess the efficacy and safety ofthromboprophylaxis with an intermediate dose of Tinzaparin in lung cancer patients with high thrombotic risk. METHODS: This was a non-interventional, single-arm, prospective cohort study of lung cancer patients who received thromboprophylaxis with Tinzaparin 10.000 Anti-Xa IU in 0.5 mL, OD, used in current clinical practice. Enrolled ambulatory patients signed informed consent. Anti-Xa levels were tested. RESULTS: In total, 140 patients were included in the study, of which 81.4% were males. The histology of the tumor was mainly adenocarcinoma. Lung cancer patients with high thrombotic risk based on tumor, patient, treatment, and laboratory-related factors were enrolled. Only one patient experienced a thrombotic event (0.7%), and 10 patients had bleeding events (7.1%), including only one major event. Anti-Xa levels measured at 10 days and 3 months did not differ significantly between patients who developed hemorrhagic events and those who did not (p = 0.26 and p = 0.32, respectively). CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis with an intermediate Tinzaparin dose in high thrombotic-risk lung cancer patients is a safe and effective choice for the prevention of VTE.
RESUMEN
Background: Telemedicine is increasingly used in several fields of healthcare, including vascular medicine. This study aimed to investigate the views of experts and propose clinical practice recommendations on the possible applications of telemedicine in vascular medicine. Methods: A clinical guidance group proposed a set of 67 clinical practice recommendations based on the synthesis of current evidence and expert opinion. The Telemedicine Vascular Medicine Working Group included 32 experts from Europe evaluating the appropriateness of each clinical practice recommendation based on published RAND/UCLA methodology in two rounds. Results: In the first round, 60.9% of clinical practice recommendations were rated as appropriate, 35.9% as uncertain, and 3.1% as inappropriate. The strongest agreement (a median value of 10) was reached on statements regarding the usefulness of telemedicine during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, its usefulness for geographical areas that are difficult to access, and the superiority of video calls compared to phone calls only. The lowest degree of agreement (a median value of 2) was reported on statements regarding the utility of telemedicine being limited to the COVID-19 pandemic and regarding the applicability of teleconsultation in the diagnosis and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm. In the second round, 11 statements were re-evaluated to reduce variability. Conclusions: This study highlights the levels of agreement and the points that raise concern on the use of telemedicine in vascular medicine. It emphasizes the need for further clarification on various issues, including infrastructure, logistics, and legislation.
RESUMEN
Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs), including thymomas and thymic carcinomas, are rare malignancies arising from the thymus gland. The optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach. Standard first-line systemic treatment involves cytotoxic chemotherapeutic regimens; however, alternative options for systemic treatment are required. Current research focuses on the unique profile of immune-related pathogenic mechanisms of TETs, involving an overlap with certain autoimmune phenotypes, as well as on determining the landscape of oncogenic molecular alterations and the role of tumor angiogenesis. The aim of the present review is to summarize the current clinical investigation on immunotherapy and targeted agents in the management of TETs. Regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors, efficacy results are promising in certain subsets of patients; however, caution is required concerning their toxicity. Anti-angiogenic agents, mainly potent small-molecule inhibitors, have demonstrated antitumor activity in TETs, whereas other targeted agents, including KIT inhibitors and epigenetic agents, are associated with encouraging, yet still modest results for unselected populations, in the absence of predictive biomarkers. Future research should focus on identifying predictive biomarkers for patients with TETs, and should implement multicenter collaborations and appropriate clinical trials tailored for rare tumor types.
RESUMEN
Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is a clinical entity characterized by signs and symptoms arising from the obstruction or occlusion of the thin-walled superior vena cava (SVC) and can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the rise of benign cases of SVCS, as a thrombotic complication of intravascular devices, it is most commonly seen secondary to malignancy as a consequence of thrombosis, direct invasion of tumor cells inside the vessel, or external compression. SVCS can be the initial presentation of a previously undiagnosed tumor in up to 60% of cases. Lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are responsible for up to 85%-90% of malignancy-related SVCS, while metastatic cancers account for approximately 10%. Herein, we review the pathophysiology, etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of malignancy-related SVCS.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: This study analyzed the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 with major events during the first days of hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients admitted to two hospitals in Athens, Greece. The characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who suffered the primary endpoint (venous thromboembolic events, intubation, and death) during the first days of hospitalization were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 95 patients included in the analysis, 21 presented with major adverse events during a median follow-up of 13 days. More than 50% of these patients presented with a major event during the first 3 days. Anticoagulation treatment was inversely associated with the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint [hazard ratio=0.16 (95% confidence interval=0.06-0.47)]. Patients with major events were older, with lower baseline SatO2, and higher number of Wells' criteria and Charlson comorbidity index. Among these patients, those with hypertension were at higher risk for early occurrence of events (≤ first three days of hospitalization). CONCLUSION: Major adverse events may occur early in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with a high-risk profile. Anticoagulation treatment appears to reduce this risk and thus prompt thromboprophylaxis should be employed in these patients.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Tromboembolia Venosa , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients.
RESUMEN
Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currentlyindicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARS-CoV2 remains unclear In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Trombosis , Tromboembolia Venosa , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/complicaciones , Células Endoteliales , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios Prospectivos , ARN Viral , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Trombosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Trombosis/etiología , Trombosis/prevención & control , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a multifactorial disease that can possibly affect any part of venous circulation. The risk of VTE increases by about 2 fold in pregnant women and VTE is one of the major causes of maternal morbidity and mortality. For decades superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) has been considered as benign, self-limiting condition, primarily local event consequently being out of scope of well conducted epidemiological and clinical studies. Recently, the approach on SVT has significantly changed considering that prevalence of lower limb SVT is twice higher than both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The clinical severity of SVT largely depends on the localization of thrombosis, when it concerns the major superficial vein vessels of the lower limb and particularly the great saphenous vein. If untreated or inadequately treated, SVT can potentially cause DVT or PE. The purpose of this review is to discuss the complex interconnection between SVT and risk factors in pregnancy and to provide evidence-based considerations, suggestions, and recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of this precarious and delicate clinical entity.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Trombosis de la Vena/tratamiento farmacológico , Trombosis de la Vena/prevención & control , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Peninsula Balcánica , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 13% of all lung cancers. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors for VTE in SCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with histologically confirmed SCLC treated between January 2015 and June 2018 at Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventeen patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of VTE was 4.1%. Increased body mass index (BMI) was correlated with the development of VTE. Moreover, VTE appeared more frequently in patients with major vessel infiltration and with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status. Other factors, including gender, age, stage, presence of metastasis, treatment, immobilization, anticoagulation, comorbidities, and laboratory values did not correlate with the development of VTE. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with the development of VTE were BMI, major vessel infiltration and PS. Identifying factors that predispose to VTE could help physicians detect high-risk patients who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/complicaciones , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/complicaciones , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología , Anciano , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Índice de Masa Corporal , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & controlRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: To investigate the efficacy (prognosis, coagulation/inflammation biomarkers) and safety (bleeding events) of different anticoagulation dosages in COVID-19 inpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: COVID-19 inpatients (Athens, Greece) were included. The "Enhanced dose THRomboprophylaxis in Admissions (ETHRA)" protocol was applied in certain Departments, suggesting the use of intermediate anticoagulation dosage. The primary endpoint was a composite of intubation/venous thromboembolism/death. Inflammation/coagulation parameters were assessed. RESULTS: Among 127 admissions, 95 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one events (4 deaths, 17 intubations) were observed. Regression analysis demonstrated significant reduction of events with intermediate or therapeutic dosage [HR=0.16 (95%CI=0.05-0.52) p=0.002; HR=0.17 (0.04-0.71) p=0.015, respectively]. D-Dimer values were higher in those who met the composite endpoint. Intermediate dosage treatment was associated with decreased values of ferritin. Three patients (3%) had minor hemorrhagic complications. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation treatment (particularly intermediate dosage) appears to have positive impact on COVID-19 inpatients' prognosis by inhibiting both coagulation and inflammatory cascades.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Coagulación Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/sangre , COVID-19/virología , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Femenino , Grecia , Humanos , Pacientes Internos/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2/fisiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Tromboembolia Venosa/sangreRESUMEN
Even today thromboangiitis obliterans has disease features that remain misunderstood or underappreciated. The epidemiology, etiology and pathophysiology of the disease are still unclear. Biomarkers and disease activity markers are lacking, thus clinical assessment is difficult. We are still struggling to establish unique diagnostic, staging and treatment criteria. This is an academic-collaborative effort to describe the pathophysiology, the clinical manifestations, the diagnostic approach, and the challenges of management of patients with TAO. A systematic search for relevant studies dating from 1900 to the end of 2020 was performed on the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Science Direct databases. Given the intriguing nature of presentation of TAO, its management, to some extent is not only different in different regions of the world but also varies within the same region. Following this project, we discovered ambiguity, overlap and lack of clear-cut criteria for management of TAO. An international group of experts however came to one conclusion. They all agree that management of TAO needs a call for action for a renewed global look with multi-center studies, to update the geographical distribution of the disease and to establish a unique set of diagnostic criteria and a consensus-based guideline for best treatment based on current evidence.
Asunto(s)
Cardiología , Tromboangitis Obliterante , Humanos , Tromboangitis Obliterante/diagnóstico , Tromboangitis Obliterante/epidemiología , Tromboangitis Obliterante/terapiaRESUMEN
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), even rare, is a life-threatening, immune-mediated complication of heparin exposure. It is considered the most severe non-bleeding adverse reaction of heparin treatment and one of the most important adverse drug reactions. The pathophysiological basis of HIT results from the formation of an immunocomplex consisting of an auto-antibody against platelet factor 4 (PF4) - heparin complex, which binds to the surface of platelets and monocytes, provoking their activation by cross-linking FcgIIA receptors. Platelets and monocyte activation, leads to the generation of catastrophic arterial and venous thrombosis, with a mortality rate of 20%, without early recognition. The definitive diagnosis of HIT i.e., clinical and laboratory evidence, can not be done at the onset of symptoms because laboratory results may not be available for several days. Thus, the initial approach is to predict the likelihood of HIT, because in highly suspected patients immediate heparin cessation and initiation of alternative anticoagulation treatment are crucial for the prevention of the devastating thrombotic sequelae. Herein, we describe the pathophysiology, the clinical manifestations, the diagnostic approach, and the management of patients with HIT.
RESUMEN
Background Lymphedema is a chronic condition caused by a failure in the lymphatic system that most commonly occurs in the limbs. Complete decongestive therapy (CDT) is the gold standard for lymphedema management. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of complete decongestive therapy (CDT) of phase I in the Greek population with lymphedema. Methods The patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. CDT was implemented in all patients for 20 sessions in a four-week treatment period. The edema's (excess volume (EV) and percent of excess volume (PEV)) measurements were carried out four times in the treatment period, whereas the percent reduction of excess volume (PREV) was calculated at the end of phase I. Moreover, we recorded every infection, trauma of skin, and pain of limb during the treatment. Results One-hundred five patients with lymphedema were enrolled in the present study, of whom 31.4% had upper limb lymphedema and 68.6% had lower limb lymphedema. All patients with upper limb lymphedema had a secondary type while the corresponding proportion of patients with lower limb lymphedema was 58.3%. A significant reduction (p<0.001) between the pre-treatment and post-treatment values of EV and PEV was found for both upper and lower limb lymphedema. For patients with upper limb lymphedema, the average PREV was 66.5% (interquartile range, 57.3%-80.6%), whereas for patients with lower limb lymphedema, a 71.5% (interquartile range, 64.5%-80.7%) median value was measured. No side effects from the treatment were recorded during CDT. Conclusion The proper treatment of the CDT phase I ensures safety and a great reduction in edema in patients with lymphedema that predispose the success of phase II of CDT.