Search

Aim: To examine the association of iron biomarkers with menopausal status and assess whether these biomarkers can help differentiate menopausal status beyond age. Methods: In this cross-sectional study we included 1679 women from the CoLaus and 2133 from the PREVEND cohorts, with CoLaus used as primary cohort and PREVEND for replication. Ferritin, transferrin, iron, and transferrin saturation (TSAT) were used to assess iron status. Hepcidin and soluble transferrin receptor were assessed only in PREVEND. Menopausal status was self-reported and defined as menopausal or non-menopausal. Logistic regressions were used to explore the association of these iron biomarkers with menopause status. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), positive and negative predictive values as well as cut-off points for the iron biomarkers were calculated. The model with the highest AUC was defined as the best. Results:In the CoLaus and PREVEND cohorts, respectively, 513 (30.6 %) and 988 (46.3 %) women were postmenopausal. Ferritin (OR, 2.20; 95 % CI 1.72–2.90), transferrin (OR, 0.03; 95 % CI 0.01–0.10), and TSAT (OR, 1.28; 95 % CI 1.06–1.54) were significantly associated with menopausal status in CoLaus, with the findings replicated in PREVEND. AUC of age alone was 0.971. The best model resulted from combining age, ferritin, and transferrin, with an AUC of 0.976, and sensitivity and specificity of 87.1 % and 96.5 %, respectively. Adding transferrin and ferritin to a model with age improved menopause classification by up to 7.5 %. In PREVEND, a model with age and hepcidin outperformed a model with age, ferritin, and transferrin. Conclusion: Iron biomarkers were consistently associated with menopausal status in both cohorts, and modestly improved a model with age alone for differentiating menopause status. Our findings on hepcidin need replication.

Aims Optimal endovascular management of intermittent claudication (IC) remains disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety outcomes for balloon angioplasty (BA), bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-coated balloons (DCB), drug-eluting stents (DES), covered stents, and atherectomy. Methods and results Electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCT) from inception through November 2021. Efficacy outcomes were primary patency, target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and quality-of-life (QoL). Safety endpoints were all-cause mortality and major amputation. Outcomes were evaluated at short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1–2 years), and long-term (≥2 years) follow-up. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021292639). Fifty-one RCTs enrolling 8430 patients/lesions were included. In femoropopliteal disease of low-to-intermediate complexity, DCBs were associated with higher likelihood of primary patency [short-term: odds ratio (OR) 3.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.44–4.24; long-term: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.93–3.16], lower TLR (short-term: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22–0.49; long-term: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29–0.60) and similar all-cause mortality risk, compared with BA. Primary stenting using BMS was associated with improved short-to-mid-term patency and TLR, but similar long-term efficacy compared with provisional stenting. Mid-term patency (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.89–3.03) and TLR (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22–1.11) estimates were comparable for DES vs. BMS. Atherectomy, used independently or adjunctively, was not associated with efficacy benefits compared with drug-coated and uncoated angioplasty, or stenting approaches. Paucity and heterogeneity of data precluded pooled analysis for aortoiliac disease and QoL endpoints. Conclusion Certain devices may provide benefits in femoropopliteal disease, but comparative data in aortoiliac arteries is lacking. Gaps in evidence quantity and quality i, + ID der Publikation: unilu_64224 + Sprache: Englisch + Letzte Aktualisierung: 2023-03-24 11:14:57

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncer

Aims: To investigate the association between circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases, and to elucidate the dose-response relations. Methods and results: We searched literature to find prospective studies reporting adjusted risk estimates on the association of Lp(a) and mortality outcomes. Forty-three publications, reporting on 75 studies (957,253 participants), were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for the top versus bottom tertile of Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause mortality were 1.09 (95%CI: 1.01–1.18, I2: 75.34%, n = 19) in the general population and 1.18 (95%CI: 1.04–1.34, I2: 52.5%, n = 12) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The HRs for CVD mortality were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.11–1.58, I2: 82.8%, n = 31) in the general population, 1.25 (95%CI: 1.10–1.43, I2: 54.3%, n = 17) in patients with CVD and 2.53 (95%CI: 1.13–5.64, I2: 66%, n = 4) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Linear dose-response analyses revealed that each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) levels was associated with 31% and 15% greater risk of CVD death in the general population and in patients with CVD. No non-linear dose-response association was observed between Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause or CVD mortality in the general population or in patients with CVD (Pnonlinearity > 0.05). Conclusion: This study provides further evidence that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD-death in the general population and in patients with CVD. These findings support the ESC/EAS Guidelines that recommend Lp(a) should be measured at least once in each adult person’s lifetime, since our study suggests those with higher Lp(a) might also have higher risk of mortality.