1. |
|
|
2. |
- de Erausquin, Gabriel A, et al.
(author)
-
Chronic neuropsychiatric sequelae of SARS-CoV-2: Protocol and methods from the Alzheimer's Association Global Consortium.
- 2022
-
In: Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). - : Wiley. - 2352-8737. ; 8:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused >3.5 million deaths worldwide and affected >160 million people. At least twice as many have been infected but remained asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. COVID-19 includes central nervous system manifestations mediated by inflammation and cerebrovascular, anoxic, and/or viral neurotoxicity mechanisms. More than one third of patients with COVID-19 develop neurologic problems during the acute phase of the illness, including loss of sense of smell or taste, seizures, and stroke. Damage or functional changes to the brain may result in chronic sequelae. The risk of incident cognitive and neuropsychiatric complications appears independent from the severity of the original pulmonary illness. It behooves the scientific and medical community to attempt to understand the molecular and/or systemic factors linking COVID-19 to neurologic illness, both short and long term.This article describes what is known so far in terms of links among COVID-19, the brain, neurological symptoms, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias. We focus on risk factors and possible molecular, inflammatory, and viral mechanisms underlying neurological injury. We also provide a comprehensive description of the Alzheimer's Association Consortium on Chronic Neuropsychiatric Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (CNS SC2) harmonized methodology to address these questions using a worldwide network of researchers and institutions.Successful harmonization of designs and methods was achieved through a consensus process initially fragmented by specific interest groups (epidemiology, clinical assessments, cognitive evaluation, biomarkers, and neuroimaging). Conclusions from subcommittees were presented to the whole group and discussed extensively. Presently data collection is ongoing at 19 sites in 12 countries representing Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe.The Alzheimer's Association Global Consortium harmonized methodology is proposed as a model to study long-term neurocognitive sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The following review describes what is known so far in terms of molecular and epidemiological links among COVID-19, the brain, neurological symptoms, and AD and related dementias (ADRD)The primary objective of this large-scale collaboration is to clarify the pathogenesis of ADRD and to advance our understanding of the impact of a neurotropic virus on the long-term risk of cognitive decline and other CNS sequelae. No available evidence supports the notion that cognitive impairment after SARS-CoV-2 infection is a form of dementia (ADRD or otherwise). The longitudinal methodologies espoused by the consortium are intended to provide data to answer this question as clearly as possible controlling for possible confounders. Our specific hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 triggers ADRD-like pathology following the extended olfactory cortical network (EOCN) in older individuals with specific genetic susceptibility.The proposed harmonization strategies and flexible study designs offer the possibility to include large samples of under-represented racial and ethnic groups, creating a rich set of harmonized cohorts for future studies of the pathophysiology, determinants, long-term consequences, and trends in cognitive aging, ADRD, and vascular disease.We provide a framework for current and future studies to be carried out within the Consortium. and offers a "green paper" to the research community with a very broad, global base of support, on tools suitable for low- and middle-income countries aimed to compare and combine future longitudinal data on the topic.The Consortium proposes a combination of design and statistical methods as a means of approaching causal inference of the COVID-19 neuropsychiatric sequelae. We expect that deep phenotyping of neuropsychiatric sequelae may provide a series of candidate syndromes with phenomenological and biological characterization that can be further explored. By generating high-quality harmonized data across sites we aim to capture both descriptive and, where possible, causal associations.
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Tjerkaski, J, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in myocardial infarction patients with high bleeding risk- A report from the SWEDEHEART registry.
- 2023
-
In: European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy. - 2055-6837 .- 2055-6845. ; 9:7, s. 627-635
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Ticagrelor is associated with a lower risk of ischemic events than clopidogrel. However, it is uncertain whether the benefits of more intensive anti-ischemic therapy outweigh the risks of major bleeding in patients who have a high bleeding risk (HBR). Therefore, this study compared ticagrelor and clopidogrel in myocardial infarction (MI) patients with HBR.This study included all patients enrolled in the SWEDEHEART registry who were discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy using ticagrelor or clopidogrel following MI between 2010 and 2017. HBR was defined as a PRECISE-DAPT score ≥ 25. Information on ischemic events, major bleeding and mortality was obtained from national registries, with 365 days of follow-up. Additional outcomes include major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of MI, stroke and all-cause mortality, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACE and bleeding. This study included 25,042 HBR patients, of whom 11,848 were treated with ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of MI, stroke and MACE, but a higher risk of bleeding compared to clopidogrel. There were no significant differences in mortality and NACE. Additionally, when examining the relationship between antiplatelet therapy and bleeding risk in 69,040 MI patients, we found no statistically significant interactions between the PRECISE-DAPT score and treatment effect.We observed no difference in NACE when comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in HBR patients. Moreover, we found no statistically significant interactions between bleeding risk and the comparative effectiveness of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in a larger population of MI patients.
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
- Venetsanos, D, et al.
(author)
-
Correction
- 2021
-
In: JACC. Cardiovascular interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1876-7605 .- 1936-8798. ; 14:17, s. 1964-1964
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
- Venetsanos, D., et al.
(author)
-
Utilization and outcomes of rotational atherectomy in Sweden
- 2020
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 41:Suppl. 2, s. 2528-2528
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Aim: To evaluate utilization and outcomes of rotational atherectomy (RA) using data from the Swedish Coronary and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR).Methods: We included 1476 patients with 2218 lesions who underwent RA from 2005 to 2016. To study temporal changes, the study period was divided into three equal time-periods, period A, B and C.Results: Although the number of RA procedures increased 3-fold from 2005 to 2016, the rate of RA (of all PCI procedures) remained low (0.5% vs 1.2% in 2005 vs 2016). RA patients consisted a high-risk group, with advanced age and clustering of comorbidities. Over time, included patients were older and had a higher risk profile. Trans-radial access, drug eluting stent (DES) use and use of intravascular imaging significantly increased from period A to C whereas positioning of a temporary pacemaker or intra-aortic balloon pump declined. Unfractionated heparin became the main anticoagulant (52 vs 87%) and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors declined (31 vs 12%, in period A vs C). Following RA, 11% of lesions were treated without stent (15 vs 15 vs 8%, in period A, B and C) (Rota-only). In lesions treated with a stent, a bare metal stent (BMS) was implanted in 39% vs 12% vs 2% and a new generation DES (N-DES) in 5 vs 75 vs 97% (period A vs B vs C) of lesions.The 3-year cumulative rate of restenosis was 6.7% (122 events), (11.1 vs 7.1 vs 4.1% in period A vs B vs C). As compared to DES, rota-only (adjusted HR 2.71; 95% CI 1.69- 4.36) and BMS (adjusted HR 3.63; 95% CI 2.27- 5.81) were associated with significantly higher risk for restenosis. First generation DES were associated with numerically higher but not significantly different risk for restenosis as compared to N-DES (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 0.74- 2.31).The 3 year cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction (MI) or any restenosis was 30.6% (34.2 vs 31.4 vs 28.2%, in period A vs B vs C) and the corresponding numbers for all-cause mortality were 18.1% (18.9 vs 18.4 vs 17.0%). After adjustment for baseline characteristics and angiographic findings, RA in period A was associated with higher risk for MACE as compared to period C (adjusted HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.09- 1.79), due to higher risk for MI and restenosis. The difference disappeared when procedural characteristics, including DES use, were added to the model.The rate of major in-hospital complications was 7.0%, including in-hospital death 1.3%, periprocedural MI 2.8%, perforation 1.1%, cardiac tamponade 0.7%, stroke 0.2% and major bleedings 2.1%. We found no significant differences over time.Conclusion: During the studied period, RA remained a rare procedure, utilised in a highly selected population. Over time a declining rate of restenosis and MI after RA was observed, a finding that appeared to be mainly driven by an increased use of DES. The rate of major in-hospital complication remained low.
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
- Christiansen, Evald H, et al.
(author)
-
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.
- 2017
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 376:19, s. 1813-1823
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure.Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).
|
|