| 1. |
- Kim, Won Keun, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes and performance of the ACURATE neo2 transcatheter heart valve in clinical practice : one-yearresults of the ACURATE neo2 PMCF Study
- 2024
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 1969-6213. ; 20:1, s. 85-94
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis; however, complications related to paravalvular leakage (PVL) persist, including increased risk of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalisation. AIMS: We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes and valve performance at 1 year in patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the ACURATE neo2 valve in a post-market clinical setting. METHODS: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 safety events were assessed up to 1 year. Independent core laboratories evaluated echocardiographic measures of valve performance and hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT; as measured by four-dimensional computed tomography). RESULTS: The study enrolled 250 patients (64% female; mean age: 81 years; baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score: 2.9±2.0%); 246 patients were implanted with ACURATE neo2. All-cause mortality was 0.8% at 30 days and 5.1% at 1 year. The 1-year rates for stroke and disabling stroke were 3.0% and 1.3%, respectively. Overall, HALT of >50% leaflet involvement of at least one leaflet was present in 9% of patients at 30 days and in 12% of patients at 1 year. No association was observed between the presence of HALT and 1-year clinical or haemodynamic outcomes. Early haemodynamic improvements were maintained up to 1 year (mean aortic valve gradient: 47.6±14.5 mmHg at baseline, 7.6±3.2 mmHg at 1 year; mean aortic valve area: 0.7±0.2 cm2 at baseline, 1.7±0.4 cm2 at 1 year). At 1 year, 99% of patients had mild or no/trace PVL (<1% had moderate PVL; no patient had severe PVL). CONCLUSIONS: The study outcomes confirm favourable performance and safety up to 1 year in patients treated with ACURATE neo2 in routine clinical practice. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04655248).
|
|
| 2. |
- Smith, Bradley P., et al.
(författare)
-
Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo : the case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Zootaxa. - : MAGNOLIA PRESS. - 1175-5326 .- 1175-5334. ; 4564:1, s. 173-197
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The taxonomic status and systematic nomenclature of the Australian dingo remain contentious, resulting in decades of inconsistent applications in the scientific literature and in policy. Prompted by a recent publication calling for dingoes to be considered taxonomically as domestic dogs (Jackson et al. 2017, Zootaxa 4317, 201-224), we review the issues of the taxonomy applied to canids, and summarise the main differences between dingoes and other canids. We conclude that (1) the Australian dingo is a geographically isolated (allopatric) species from all other Canis, and is genetically, phenotypically, ecologically, and behaviourally distinct; and (2) the dingo appears largely devoid of many of the signs of domestication, including surviving largely as a wild animal in Australia for millennia. The case of defining dingo taxonomy provides a quintessential example of the disagreements between species concepts (e.g., biological, phylogenetic, ecological, morphological). Applying the biological species concept sensu stricto to the dingo as suggested by Jackson et al. (2017) and consistently across the Canidae would lead to an aggregation of all Canis populations, implying for example that dogs and wolves are the same species. Such an aggregation would have substantial implications for taxonomic clarity, biological research, and wildlife conservation. Any changes to the current nomen of the dingo (currently Canis dingo Meyer, 1793), must therefore offer a strong, evidence-based argument in favour of it being recognised as a subspecies of Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758, or as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, and a successful application to the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature - neither of which can be adequately supported. Although there are many species concepts, the sum of the evidence presented in this paper affirms the classification of the dingo as a distinct taxon, namely Canis dingo.
|
|
