Urgent need to clarify the definition of chronic critical limb ischemia - a position paper from the European Society for Vascular Medicine

Chronic critical lower limb ischemia (CLI) has been defined as ischemia that endangers the leg. An attempt was made to give a precise definition of CLI, based on clinical and hemodynamic data (Second European Consensus). CLI may be easily defined from a clinical point of view as rest pain of the distal foot or gangrene or ulceration. It is probably useful to add leg ulcers of other origin which do not heal because of severe ischemia, and to consider the impact of frailty on adverse outcome. From a hemodynamic viewpoint there is no consensus and most of the existing classifications are not based upon evidence. We should thus propose a definition and then validate it in a prospective cohort in order to define the patients at major risk of amputation, and also to define the categories of patients whose prognosis is improved by revascularisation. From today\u27s available data, it seems clear that the patients with a systolic toe pressure (STP) below 30 mmHg must be revascularised whenever possible. However other patients with clinically suspected CLI and STP above 30 mmHg must be evaluated and treated in specialised vascular units and revascularisation has to be discussed on a case by case basis, taking into account other data such as the WiFi classification for ulcers.In conclusion, many useful but at times contradictory definitions of CLI have been suggested. Only a few have taken into account evidence, and none have been validated prospectively. This paper aims to address this and to give notice that a CLI registry within Europe will be set up to prospectively validate, or not, the previous and suggested definitions of CLI

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: Risk Factors, Prevention and Practical Thromboprophylaxis Recommendations-State-of-the-Art.

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

Guidance for the Management of Patients with Vascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors and COVID-19: Position Paper from VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine .

COVID-19 is also manifested with hypercoagulability, pulmonary intravascular coagulation, microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis. Predisposing risk factors to severe COVID-19 are male sex, underlying cardiovascular disease, or cardiovascular risk factors including noncontrolled diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension, obesity, and advanced age. The VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine draws attention to patients with vascular disease (VD) and presents an integral strategy for the management of patients with VD or cardiovascular risk factors (VD-CVR) and COVID-19. VAS recommends (1) a COVID-19-oriented primary health care network for patients with VD-CVR for identification of patients with VD-CVR in the community and patients' education for disease symptoms, use of eHealth technology, adherence to the antithrombotic and vascular regulating treatments, and (2) close medical follow-up for efficacious control of VD progression and prompt application of physical and social distancing measures in case of new epidemic waves. For patients with VD-CVR who receive home treatment for COVID-19, VAS recommends assessment for (1) disease worsening risk and prioritized hospitalization of those at high risk and (2) VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for those at high risk. For hospitalized patients with VD-CVR and COVID-19, VAS recommends (1) routine thromboprophylaxis with weight-adjusted intermediate doses of LMWH (unless contraindication); (2) LMWH as the drug of choice over unfractionated heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of VTE or hypercoagulability; (3) careful evaluation of the risk for disease worsening and prompt application of targeted antiviral or convalescence treatments; (4) monitoring of D-dimer for optimization of the antithrombotic treatment; and (5) evaluation of the risk of VTE before hospital discharge using the IMPROVE-D-dimer score and prolonged post-discharge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or LMWH

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, we review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexisting thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/1/Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/3/DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docxhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/4/license_rdf.rdfDescription of Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdf : ArticleDescription of DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docx : Deep Blue sharing agreemen

Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials.

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

Identification of a biomarker panel for improvement of prostate cancer diagnosis by volatile metabolic profiling of urine

Background: The lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is a major hurdle to improve patient management. Methods: A metabolomics approach based on GC-MS was used to investigate the performance of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in general and, more specifically, volatile carbonyl compounds (VCCs) present in urine as potential markers for PCa detection. Results: Results showed that PCa patients (n = 40) can be differentiated from cancer-free subjects (n = 42) based on their urinary volatile profile in both VOCs and VCCs models, unveiling significant differences in the levels of several metabolites. The models constructed were further validated using an external validation set (n = 18 PCa and n = 18 controls) to evaluate sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the urinary volatile profile to discriminate PCa from controls. The VOCs model disclosed 78% sensitivity, 94% specificity and 86% accuracy, whereas the VCCs model achieved the same sensitivity, a specificity of 100% and an accuracy of 89%. Our findings unveil a panel of 6 volatile compounds significantly altered in PCa patients' urine samples that was able to identify PCa, with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 83%, and accuracy of 86%. Conclusions: It is disclosed a biomarker panel with potential to be used as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for PCa.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area in ultrasound images of asymptomatic carotid plaques predicts the occurrence of stroke

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the size of a juxtaluminal black (hypoechoic) area (JBA) in ultrasound images of asymptomatic carotid artery plaques predicts future ipsilateral ischemic stroke. Methods: A JBA was defined as an area of pixels with a grayscale value <25 adjacent to the lumen without a visible echogenic cap after image normalization. The size of a JBA was measured in the carotid plaque images of 1121 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis 50% to 99% in relation to the bulb (Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Risk of Stroke study); the patients were followed for up to 8 years. Results: The JBA had a linear association with future stroke rate. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.816. Using Kaplan-Meier curves, the mean annual stroke rate was 0.4% in 706 patients with a JBA <4 mm 2, 1.4% in 171 patients with a JBA 4 to 8 mm2, 3.2% in 46 patients with a JBA 8 to 10 mm2, and 5% in 198 patients with a JBA >10 mm2 (P <.001). In a Cox model with ipsilateral ischemic events (amaurosis fugax, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or stroke) as the dependent variable, the JBA (<4 mm2, 4-8 mm2, >8 mm2) was still significant after adjusting for other plaque features known to be associated with increased risk, including stenosis, grayscale median, presence of discrete white areas without acoustic shadowing indicating neovascularization, plaque area, and history of contralateral TIA or stroke. Plaque area and grayscale median were not significant. Using the significant variables (stenosis, discrete white areas without acoustic shadowing, JBA, and history of contralateral TIA or stroke), this model predicted the annual risk of stroke for each patient (range, 0.1%-10.0%). The average annual stroke risk was <1% in 734 patients, 1% to 1.9% in 94 patients, 2% to 3.9% in 134 patients, 4% to 5.9% in 125 patients, and 6% to 10% in 34 patients. Conclusions: The size of a JBA is linearly related to the risk of stroke and can be used in risk stratification models. These findings need to be confirmed in future prospective studies or in the medical arm of randomized controlled studies in the presence of optimal medical therapy. In the meantime, the JBA may be used to select asymptomatic patients at high stroke risk for carotid endarterectomy and spare patients at low risk from an unnecessary operation