| 1. |
- In ’t Veld, Sjors G.J.G., et al.
(author)
-
Detection and localization of early- and late-stage cancers using platelet RNA
- 2022
-
In: Cancer Cell. - : Elsevier. - 1535-6108 .- 1878-3686. ; 40:9, s. 999-1009.e6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cancer patients benefit from early tumor detection since treatment outcomes are more favorable for less advanced cancers. Platelets are involved in cancer progression and are considered a promising biosource for cancer detection, as they alter their RNA content upon local and systemic cues. We show that tumor-educated platelet (TEP) RNA-based blood tests enable the detection of 18 cancer types. With 99% specificity in asymptomatic controls, thromboSeq correctly detected the presence of cancer in two-thirds of 1,096 blood samples from stage I–IV cancer patients and in half of 352 stage I–III tumors. Symptomatic controls, including inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases, and benign tumors had increased false-positive test results with an average specificity of 78%. Moreover, thromboSeq determined the tumor site of origin in five different tumor types correctly in over 80% of the cancer patients. These results highlight the potential properties of TEP-derived RNA panels to supplement current approaches for blood-based cancer screening.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Alfonso, Fernando, et al.
(author)
-
Authorship : From credit to accountability - Reflections from the Editors' network.
- 2019
-
In: Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico. - 1665-1731. ; 89:1, s. 93-99
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new -(fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.
|
|
| 6. |
- Alfonso, Fernando, et al.
(author)
-
Authorship : From credit to accountability - Reflections from the Editors' network.
- 2019
-
In: Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico. - 1665-1731. ; 89:2, s. 105-111
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new -(fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Engström, A E, et al.
(author)
-
Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a three-center experience
- 2013
-
In: Minerva Cardioangiologica. - : Edizione Minerva Medica. - 0026-4725 .- 1827-1618. ; 61:5, s. 539-546
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIM:Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates, despite full conventional treatment. Although the results of treatment with surgically implantable ventricular assist devices have been encouraging, the invasiveness of this treatment limits its applicability. Several less invasive devices have been developed, including the Impella system. The objective of this study was to describe our three-center experience with the Impella 5.0 device in the setting of PCCS.METHODS:From January 2004 through December 2010, a total of 46 patients were diagnosed with treatment-refractory PCCS and treated with the Impella 5.0 percutaneous left ventricular assist device at three european heart centers. Baseline and follow-up characteristics were collected retrospectively and entered into a dedicated database.RESULTS:Within the study cohort of 46 patients, mean logistic and additive EuroSCORES were 24 ± 19 and 10 ± 4. The majority of patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (48%) or combined surgery (33%). Half of all patients had been treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump before 5.0-implantation, 1 patient had been treated with an Impella 2.5 device. All patients were on mechanical ventilation and intravenous inotropes. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall 30-day survival was 39.5%.CONCLUSION:Thirty-day survival rates for patients with PCCS, refractory to aggressive conventional treatment and treated with the Impella 5.0 device, are comparable to those reported in studies evaluating surgically implantable VADs, whereas the Impella system is much less invasive. Therefore, mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device is a suitable treatment modality for patients with severe PCCS.
|
|
| 9. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(author)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
In: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
