Search

Objective To describe the mid-term outcome after inferior selective crossectomy in a subset of patients with symptomatic chronic venous disease and both great saphenous vein and suprasaphenic valve incompetence. Methodsː Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. During an eight-year period, 1095 ligations of all saphenofemoral junction inferior tributaries and great saphenous vein stripping were performed in 814 Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathophysiology C2–C6 patients. Duplex ultrasound follow-up examinations were performed after 30 days, 6 months, and 2 years, and saphenofemoral junction hemodynamic patterns and varicose veins recurrence rates were evaluated. Results Two hundred and twenty patients completed the two-year follow-up period. At the 30-day Duplex ultrasound evaluations, two different hemodynamic patterns were described. Type 1, with physiological drainage of saphenofemoral junction superior tributaries, was observed in 214 patients. Type 2, without flow in saphenofemoral junction superior tributaries, was observed in six patients. Overall varicose vein recurrence rates were 0, 2.3, and 2.7% at the 30-day, 6-month, and 2-year follow-up examinations, respectively. At the two-year follow-up, Type 1 patients showed 0% varicose vein recurrence, while Type 2 patients showed 100%. Conclusionsː Inferior selective crossectomy seems to be a valid and safe option in case of both suprasaphenic valve and great saphenous vein incompetence. Duplex ultrasound evaluation, according to our protocol, allows us to identify two different saphenofemoral junction hemodynamic patterns that could predict varicose vein recurrence at mid-term. An optimal stump washing after inferior selective crossectomy, warranted by patency and large caliber saphenofemoral junction superior tributaries, seems to be the key point in preventing varicose vein recurrence in this context. However, large prospective studies regarding saphenofemoral junction modifications and varicose vein recurrence are needed to confirm these preliminary observations.

Background: The management of septic patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine wards represents a challenge due to their complexity and heterogeneity, and a high mortality rate. Among the available prognostic tools, procalcitonin (PCT) is considered a marker of bacterial infection. Furthermore, an association between vitamin D deficiency and poor sepsis-related outcomes has been described. Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic accuracy of two consecutive PCT determinations (Delta-PCT) and of vitamin D levels in predicting mortality in a population of patients with microbiological identified sepsis admitted to Internal Medicine wards. Methods: This is a sub-analysis of a previous prospective study. A total of 80 patients had at least two available consecutive PCT determinations, while 63 had also vitamin D. Delta-PCT was defined as a reduction of PCT &gt, 50% after 48 h, &gt, 75% after 72 h, and &gt, 85% after 96 h. Mortality rate at 28- and 90-days were considered as main outcome. Results: Mortality rate was 18.7% at 28-days and 30.0% at 90-days. Baseline PCT levels did not differ between survived and deceased patients (28-days: p = 0.525, 90-days: p = 0.088). A significantly higher proportion of survived patients showed Delta-PCT (28-days: p = 0.002, 90-days: p &lt, 0.001). Delta-PCT was associated with a lower 28-days (p = 0.007, OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.02–0.46) and 90-days mortality (p = 0.001, OR = 0.17, 95%CI 0.06–0.48). A significantly higher proportion of deceased patients showed severe vitamin D deficiency (28-days: p = 0.047, 90-days: p = 0.049). Severe vitamin D deficiency was associated with a higher 28-days (p = 0.058, OR = 3.95, 95%CI 1.04–19.43) and 90-days mortality (p = 0.054, OR = 2.94, 95%CI 1.00–9.23). Conclusions: Delta-PCT and vitamin D represent two useful tests for predicting prognosis of septic patients admitted to Internal Medicine wards.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease. Bilateral pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, systemic inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and coagulation activation are key features of severe COVID-19. Fibrinogen and D-dimer levels are typically increased. The risk for venous thromboembolism is markedly increased, especially in patients in the intensive care unit despite prophylactic dose anticoagulation. Pulmonary microvascular thrombosis has also been described and the risk for arterial thrombotic diseases also appears to be increased while bleeding is less common than thrombosis, but it can occur. Evaluation for venous thromboembolism may be challenging because symptoms of pulmonary embolism overlap with COVID-19, and imaging studies may not be feasible in all cases. The threshold for evaluation or diagnosis of thromboembolism should be low given the high frequency of these events. Management and treatment are new challenges due to the paucity of high-quality evidence regarding efficacy and safety of different approaches to prevent or treat thromboembolic complications of the disease. All inpatients should receive thromboprophylaxis unless contraindicated. Some institutional protocols provide more aggressive anticoagulation with intermediate or even therapeutic dose anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation is always appropriate to treat deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, unless contraindicated. This article reviews evaluation and management of coagulation abnormalities in individuals with COVID-19.

The presence of a vascular access device (or of any intravascular foreign body) inside the bloodstream is often associated with the formation of a connective tissue sleeve around the catheter (often named—erroneously—“fibrin sleeve”). Such sleeve is usually a physiological phenomenon with little or no clinical relevance, but its pathogenesis is still unclear, so that it is frequently confused with venous thrombosis; also, its relationship with other major catheter-related complications, such as venous thrombosis and bloodstream infection, is uncertain. This narrative review tries to convey in a systematic form the current knowledge about pathogenesis, incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of this phenomenon.

Alterations of intestinal microflora may significantly contribute to the pathogenesis of different inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. There is emerging interest on the role of selective modulation of microflora in inducing benefits in inflammatory intestinal disorders, by as probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, antibiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). To summarize recent evidences on microflora modulation in main intestinal inflammatory disorders, PubMed was searched using terms microbiota, intestinal flora, probiotics, prebiotics, fecal transplantation. More than three hundred articles published up to 2015 were selected and reviewed. Randomized placebo-controlled trials and meta-analysis were firstly included, mainly for probiotics. A meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity of these studies. Most of relevant data derived from studies on probiotics, reporting some efficacy in ulcerative colitis and in pouchitis, while disappointing results are available for Crohn's disease. Probiotic supplementation may significantly reduce rates of rotavirus diarrhea. Efficacy of probiotics in NSAID enteropathy and irritable bowel syndrome is still controversial. Finally, FMT has been recently recognized as an efficacious treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Modulation of intestinal flora represents a very interesting therapeutic target, although it still deserves some doubts and limitations. Future studies should be encouraged to provide new understanding about its therapeutical role.