Search

Background: The prevalence of exercise-induced ischemia in the asymptomatic limb of patients with unilateral claudication based on history and treadmill evaluation, and with unilateral ipsilateral peripheral artery disease (i.e ankle-to-brachial systolic pressure index

Background Treatment summaries and a personalized survivorship care plans based on internationally approved, organ-specific follow-up care recommendations are essential in preserving the health and quality of life for cancer survivors. Cohorts made up of survivors of childhood cancer have made significant contributions to the understanding of early mortality, somatic late complications, and psychosocial outcomes among former patients. New treatment protocols are needed to enhance survival and reduce the potential risk and severity of late effects, and working with treatment databases is crucial in doing so. Construction and content In the GOCE (Grand Ouest Cancer de l’Enfant [Western Region Childhood Cancer]) network, in a participative approach, we developed the LOG-after medical tool, on which health data are registered and can be extracted for analysis. Its name emphasizes the tool’s goal, referring to ‘logiciel’ (the French word for software) that focuses on the period “after” the acute phase. This tool is hosted on a certified health data server. Several interfaces have been developed that can be used depending on the user’s profile. Here we present this innovative co-constructed tool that takes national aspects into account, including the results of the feasibility/satisfaction study and its perspective. Utility and discussion The database contains data relating to 2558 patients, with samples from 1702 of these (66.54%) being held in a tumor bank. The average year in which treatment started was 2015 (ranging from December 1967 to November 2022: 118 patients were treated before 2012 and registered retrospectively when seen in long-term follow-up consultations or for another cancer since November 2021). A short questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals using the tool (physicians and research associates or technicians, n = 14), of whom 11 answered and were all satisfied. Access to the patient interface is currently open to 124 former patients. This was initially offered to 30 former patients who were over 15 years old, affected by the disease within the last 5 years, and had agreed to test it. Their opinions were collected by their doctor by e-mail, telephone, or during a consultation in an open-ended question and a non-directive interview. All patients were satisfied with the tool, with interest in testing it in the long term. Some former patients found that the tool provided them with some ease of mind; one, for instance, commented: "I feel lighter. I allow myself to forget. I know I will get a notification when the time comes." Conclusions Freely available to all users, LOG-after: (1) provides help with determining personalized survivorship care plans for follow-up; (2) builds links with general practitioners; (3) empowers the patient; and (4) enables health data to be exported for analysis. Database URL for presentation: https://youtu.be/2Ga64iausJE

Clinical trial data-sharing is seen as an imperative for research integrity and is becoming increasingly encouraged or even required by funders, journals, and other stakeholders. However, early experiences with data-sharing have been disappointing because they are not always conducted properly. Health data is indeed sensitive and not always easy to share in a responsible way. We propose 10 rules for researchers wishing to share their data. These rules cover the majority of elements to be considered in order to start the commendable process of clinical trial data-sharing: Rule 1: Abide by local legal and regulatory data protection requirements Rule 2: Anticipate the possibility of clinical trial data-sharing before obtaining funding Rule 3: Declare your intent to share data in the registration step Rule 4: Involve research participants Rule 5: Determine the method of data access Rule 6: Remember there are several other elements to share Rule 7: Do not proceed alone Rule 8: Deploy optimal data management to ensure that the data shared is useful Rule 9: Minimize risks Rule 10: Strive for excellence.

Clinical trial data-sharing is seen as an imperative for research integrity and is becoming increasingly encouraged or even required by funders, journals, and other stakeholders. However, early experiences with data-sharing have been disappointing because they are not always conducted properly. Health data is indeed sensitive and not always easy to share in a responsible way. We propose 10 rules for researchers wishing to share their data. These rules cover the majority of elements to be considered in order to start the commendable process of clinical trial data-sharing: Rule 1: Abide by local legal and regulatory data protection requirementsRule 2: Anticipate the possibility of clinical trial data-sharing before obtaining fundingRule 3: Declare your intent to share data in the registration stepRule 4: Involve research participantsRule 5: Determine the method of data accessRule 6: Remember there are several other elements to shareRule 7: Do not proceed aloneRule 8: Deploy optimal data management to ensure that the data shared is usefulRule 9: Minimize risksRule 10: Strive for excellence.

BackgroundCardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) induces a systemic inflammatory response (SIRS) and affects the organ vascular bed. Experimentally, the lack of pulsatility alters myogenic tone of resistance arteries and increases the parietal inflammatory response. The purpose of this study was to compare the vascular reactivity of the internal thoracic arteries (ITAs) due to the inflammatory response between patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) under CPB with a roller pump or with a centrifugal pump.MethodsEighty elective male patients undergoing CABG were selected using one or two internal thoracic arteries under CPB with a roller pump (RP group) or centrifugal pump (CFP group). ITA samples were collected before starting CPB (Time 1) and before the last coronary anastomosis during aortic cross clamping (Time 2). The primary endpoint was the endothelium-dependent relaxation of ITAs investigated using wire-myography. The secondary endpoint was the parietal inflammatory response of arteries defined by the measurements of superoxide levels, leukocytes and lymphocytes rate and gene expression of inflammatory proteins using. Terminal complement complex activation (SC5b-9) and neutrophil activation (elastase) analysis were performed on arterial blood at the same times.ResultsExposure time of ITAs to the pump flow was respectively 43.3 minutes in the RP group and 45.7 minutes in the CFP group. Acetylcholine-dependent relaxation was conserved in the two groups whatever the time. Gene expression of C3 and C4a in the artery wall decreased from Time 1 to Time 2. No oxidative stress was observed in the graft. There was no difference between the groups concerning the leukocytes and lymphocytes rate. SC5b-9 and elastase increased between Time 1 and Time 2.ConclusionEndothelium-dependent relaxation of the internal thoracic arteries was preserved during CPB whatever the type of pump used. The inflammatory response observed in the blood was not found in the graft wall within this time frame.Trial registrationName of trial study protocol: IPITA Registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT04168853.

BACKGROUND:Misuse of thromboprophylaxis may increase preventable complications for hospitalized medical patients. OBJECTIVES:To assess the net clinical benefit of a multifaceted intervention in emergency wards (educational lectures, posters, pocket cards, computerized clinical decision support systems and, where feasible, electronic reminders) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism. PATIENTS/METHODS:Prospective cluster-randomized trial in 27 hospitals. After a pre-intervention period, centers were randomized as either intervention (n = 13) or control (n = 14). All patients over 40 years old, admitted to the emergency room, and hospitalized in a medical ward were included, totaling 1,402 (712 intervention and 690 control) and 15,351 (8,359 intervention and 6,992 control) in the pre-intervention and intervention periods, respectively. RESULTS:Symptomatic venous thromboembolism or major bleeding (primary outcome) occurred at 3 months in 3.1% and 3.2% of patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.34]). The rates of thromboembolism (1.9% vs. 1.9%), major bleedings (1.2% vs. 1.3%), and mortality (11.3% vs. 11.1%) did not differ between the groups. Between the pre-intervention and intervention periods, the proportion of patients who received prophylactic anticoagulant treatment more steeply increased in the intervention group (from 35.0% to 48.2%: +13.2%) than the control (40.7% to 44.1%: +3.4%), while the rate of adequate thromboprophylaxis remained stable in both groups (52.4% to 50.9%: -1.5%; 49.1% to 48.8%: -0.3%). CONCLUSIONS:Our intervention neither improved adequate prophylaxis nor reduced the rates of clinical events. New strategies are required to improve thromboembolism prevention for hospitalized medical patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01212393.