| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Mohanta, S. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Neuroimmune cardiovascular interfaces control atherosclerosis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 605, s. 152-159
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Atherosclerotic plaques develop in the inner intimal layer of arteries and can cause heart attacks and strokes(1). As plaques lack innervation, the effects of neuronal control on atherosclerosis remain unclear. However, the immune system respondsto plaques by forming leukocyte infiltrates in the outer connective tissue coat of arteries (the adventitia)(2-6). Here, because the peripheral nervous system uses the adventitia as its principal conduit to reach distant targets(7-9), we postulated that the peripheral nervous system may directly interact with diseased arteries. Unexpectedly, widespread neuroimmune cardiovascular interfaces (NICIs) arose in mouse and human atherosclerosis-diseased adventitia segments showed expanded axon networks, includinggrowth cones at axon endings near immune cells and media smooth muscle cells. Mouse NICIs established a structural artery-brain circuit (ABC): abdominal adventitia nociceptive afferents(10-14) entered the central nervous system through spinal cord T-6-T-13 dorsal root ganglia and were traced to higher brain regions, including the parabrachial and central amygdala neurons; and sympathetic efferent neurons projected from medullary and hypothalamic neuronsto the adventitia through spinal intermediolateral neurons and both coeliac and sympathetic chain ganglia. Moreover, ABC peripheral nervous system components were activated: splenic sympathetic and coeliac vagus nerve activities increased in parallel to disease progression, whereas coeliacganglionectomy led to the disintegration of adventitial NICIs, reduced disease progression and enhanced plaque stability. Thus, the peripheral nervous system uses NICIs to assemble a structural ABC, and therapeutic intervention in the ABC attenuates atherosclerosis.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kosmidou, Ioanna, et al.
(författare)
-
Incidence, Predictors, and Impact of Hospital Readmission After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - 1558-3597. ; 83:11, s. 1073-1081
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The frequency of and relationship between hospital readmissions and outcomes after revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) are unknown.The purpose of this study was to study the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of readmissions following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMCAD.In the EXCEL (XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD were randomized to PCI vs CABG. The cumulative incidence of readmissions was analyzed with multivariable Anderson-Gill and joint frailty models to account for recurrent events and the competing risk of death. The impact of readmission on subsequent mortality within 5-year follow-up was determined in a time-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model.Within 5 years, 1,868 readmissions occurred in 851 of 1,882 (45.2%) hospital survivors (2.2 ± 1.9 per patient with readmission[s], range 1-16), approximately one-half for cardiovascular causes and one-half for noncardiovascular causes (927 [49.6%] and 941 [50.4%], respectively). One or more readmissions occurred in 463 of 942 (48.6%) PCI patients vs 388 of 940 (41.8%) CABG patients (P = 0.003). After multivariable adjustment, PCI remained an independent predictor of readmission (adjusted HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.10-1.35; P < 0.0001), along with female sex, comorbidities, and the extent of CAD. Readmission was independently associated with subsequent all-cause death, with interaction testing indicating a higher risk after PCI than CABG (adjusted HR: 5.72; 95% CI: 3.42-9.55 vs adjusted HR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.64-4.88, respectively; Pint = 0.03).In the EXCEL trial, readmissions during 5-year follow-up after revascularization for LMCAD were common and more frequent after PCI than CABG. Readmissions were associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, more so after PCI than with CABG.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Sloot, Frea, et al.
(författare)
-
Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 22:2, s. 55-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1–4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1–4), and funding sources (8).
|
|
