| 1. |
-
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Physical Review D. - 2470-0010 .- 2470-0029. ; 96:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Douketis, J D, et al.
(författare)
-
Perioperative bridging anticoagulation during dabigatran or warfarin interruption among patients who had an elective surgery or procedure : Substudy of the RE-LY trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Thrombosis and Haemostasis. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 0340-6245 .- 2567-689X. ; 113:3, s. 625-632
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who require interruption of dabigatran or warfarin for an elective surgery/procedure, the risks and benefits of perioperative bridging anticoagulation is uncertain. We accessed the database from RE-LY, a randomised trial comparing dabigatran with warfarin for stroke prevention in AF, to assess the potential benefits and risks of bridging. In patients who had a first interruption of dabigatran or warfarin for an elective surgery/procedure, we compared the risk for major bleeding (MB), stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and any thromboembolism (TE) in patients who were bridged or not bridged during the period of seven days before until 30 days after surgery/procedure. We used multivariable Cox regression to adjust for potential confounders. Bridging was used more during warfarin interruption than dabigatran interruption (27.5 % vs 15.4 %; p< 0.001). With dabigatran interruption, bridged patients had more MB (6.5 % vs. 1.8 %, P< 0.001) than those not bridged but bridged and not bridged groups did not differ for any TE (1.2 % vs 0.6 %, p=0.16) and SSE (0.5 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.46). With warfarin interruption, bridged patients had more MB (6.8 % vs 1.6 %, p< 0.001) and any TE (1.8 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.007) than those not bridged but bridged and not bridged groups did not differ for SSE (0.5 % vs 0.2 %, p=0.321). In conclusion, in patients who interrupted dabigatran or warfarin for a surgery/procedure in the RE-LY trial, use of bridging anticoagulation appeared to increase the risk for major bleeding irrespective of dabigatran or warfarin interruption.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Cockell, C.S., et al.
(författare)
-
Habitability : a review
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Astrobiology. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 1531-1074 .- 1557-8070. ; 16:1, s. 89-117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Habitability is a widely used word in the geoscience, planetary science, and astrobiology literature, but what does it mean? In this review on habitability, we define it as the ability of an environment to support the activity of at least one known organism. We adopt a binary definition of “habitability” and a “habitable environment.” An environment either can or cannot sustain a given organism. However, environments such as entire planets might be capable of supporting more or less species diversity or biomass compared with that of Earth. A clarity in understanding habitability can be obtained by defining instantaneous habitability as the conditions at any given time in a given environment required to sustain the activity of at least one known organism, and continuous planetary habitability as the capacity of a planetary body to sustain habitable conditions on some areas of its surface or within its interior over geological timescales. We also distinguish between surface liquid water worlds (such as Earth) that can sustain liquid water on their surfaces and interior liquid water worlds, such as icy moons and terrestrial-type rocky planets with liquid water only in their interiors. This distinction is important since, while the former can potentially sustain habitable conditions for oxygenic photosynthesis that leads to the rise of atmospheric oxygen and potentially complex multicellularity and intelligence over geological timescales, the latter are unlikely to. Habitable environments do not need to contain life. Although the decoupling of habitability and the presence of life may be rare on Earth, it may be important for understanding the habitability of other planetary bodies
|
|
| 5. |
- Thuijs, Daniel J F M, et al.
(författare)
-
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Lancet (London, England). - 1474-547X. ; 394:10206, s. 1325-1334
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial was a non-inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease, and reported results up to 5 years. We now report 10-year all-cause death results.The SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study is an investigator-driven extension of follow-up of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 85 hospitals across 18 North American and European countries. Patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to the PCI group or CABG group. Patients with a history of PCI or CABG, acute myocardial infarction, or an indication for concomitant cardiac surgery were excluded. The primary endpoint of the SYNTAXES study was 10-year all-cause death, which was assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed according to the presence or absence of left main coronary artery disease and diabetes, and according to coronary complexity defined by core laboratory SYNTAX score tertiles. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03417050.From March, 2005, to April, 2007, 1800 patients were randomly assigned to the PCI (n=903) or CABG (n=897) group. Vital status information at 10 years was complete for 841 (93%) patients in the PCI group and 848 (95%) patients in the CABG group. At 10 years, 244 (27%) patients had died after PCI and 211 (24%) after CABG (hazard ratio 1·17 [95% CI 0·97-1·41], p=0·092). Among patients with three-vessel disease, 151 (28%) of 546 had died after PCI versus 113 (21%) of 549 after CABG (hazard ratio 1·41 [95% CI 1·10-1·80]), and among patients with left main coronary artery disease, 93 (26%) of 357 had died after PCI versus 98 (28%) of 348 after CABG (0·90 [0·68-1·20], pinteraction=0·019). There was no treatment-by-subgroup interaction with diabetes (pinteraction=0·66) and no linear trend across SYNTAX score tertiles (ptrend=0·30).At 10 years, no significant difference existed in all-cause death between PCI using first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents and CABG. However, CABG provided a significant survival benefit in patients with three-vessel disease, but not in patients with left main coronary artery disease.German Foundation of Heart Research (SYNTAXES study, 5-10-year follow-up) and Boston Scientific Corporation (SYNTAX study, 0-5-year follow-up).
|
|
