Device-specific weighted T-score for two quantitative ultrasounds: operational propositions for the management of osteoporosis for 65 years and older women in Switzerland.

The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of osteoporosis are mainly applicable for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at the spine and hip levels. There is a growing demand for cheaper devices, free of ionizing radiation such as promising quantitative ultrasound (QUS). In common with many other countries, QUS measurements are increasingly used in Switzerland without adequate clinical guidelines. The T-score approach developed for DXA cannot be applied to QUS, although well-conducted prospective studies have shown that ultrasound could be a valuable predictor of fracture risk. As a consequence, an expert committee named the Swiss Quality Assurance Project (SQAP, for which the main mission is the establishment of quality assurance procedures for DXA and QUS in Switzerland) was mandated by the Swiss Association Against Osteoporosis (ASCO) in 2000 to propose operational clinical recommendations for the use of QUS in the management of osteoporosis for two QUS devices sold in Switzerland. Device-specific weighted "T-score" based on the risk of osteoporotic hip fractures as well as on the prediction of DXA osteoporosis at the hip, according to the WHO definition of osteoporosis, were calculated for the Achilles (Lunar, General Electric, Madison, Wis.) and Sahara (Hologic, Waltham, Mass.) ultrasound devices. Several studies (totaling a few thousand subjects) were used to calculate age-adjusted odd ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the prediction of osteoporotic fracture (taking into account a weighting score depending on the design of the study involved in the calculation). The ORs were 2.4 (1.9-3.2) and AUC 0.72 (0.66-0.77), respectively, for the Achilles, and 2.3 (1.7-3.1) and 0.75 (0.68-0.82), respectively, for the Sahara device. To translate risk estimates into thresholds for clinical application, 90% sensitivity was used to define low fracture and low osteoporosis risk, and a specificity of 80% was used to define subjects as being at high risk of fracture or having osteoporosis at the hip. From the combination of the fracture model with the hip DXA osteoporotic model, we found a T-score threshold of -1.2 and -2.5 for the stiffness (Achilles) determining, respectively, the low- and high-risk subjects. Similarly, we found a T-score at -1.0 and -2.2 for the QUI index (Sahara). Then a screening strategy combining QUS, DXA, and clinical factors for the identification of women needing treatment was proposed. The application of this approach will help to minimize the inappropriate use of QUS from which the whole field currently suffers.

Vacuum-assisted closure device: a useful tool in the management of severe intrathoracic infections.

Background. This study is an evaluation of the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy for the treatment of severe intrathoracic infections complicating lung resection, esophageal surgery, viscera perforation, or necrotizing pleuropulmonary infections.Methods. We reviewed the medical records of all patients treated by intrathoracic VAC therapy between January 2005 and December 2008. All patients underwent surgical debridement-decortication and control of the underlying cause of infection such as treatment of bronchus stump insufficiency, resection of necrotic lung, or closure of esophageal or intestinal leaks. Surgery was followed by intrathoracic VAC therapy until the infection was controlled. The VAC dressings were changed under general anesthesia and the chest wall was temporarily closed after each dressing change. All patients received systemic antibiotic therapy.Results. Twenty-seven patients (15 male, median age 64 years) underwent intrathoracic VAC dressings for the management of postresectional empyema (n = 8) with and without bronchopleural fistula, necrotizing infections (n = 7), and intrathoracic gastrointestinal leaks (n = 12). The median length of VAC therapy was 22 days (range 5 to 66) and the median number of VAC changes per patient was 6 (range 2 to 16). In-hospital mortality was 19% (n = 5) and was not related to VAC therapy or intrathoracic infection. Control of intrathoracic infection and closure of the chest cavity was achieved in all surviving patients.Conclusions. Vacuum-assisted closure therapy is an efficient and safe adjunct to treat severe intrathoracic infections and may be a good alternative to the open window thoracostomy in selected patients. Long time intervals in between VAC changes and short course of therapy result in good patient acceptance. (Ann Thorac Surg 2011;91:1582-90) (C) 2011 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Vacuum-assisted closure device for the management of infected postpneumonectomy chest cavities.

BACKGROUND: Infected postpneumonectomy chest cavities may be related to chronic postpneumonectomy empyema or arise in rare situations of necrotizing pneumonia with complete lung destruction where pneumonectomy and pleural debridement are required. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of an intrathoracic vacuum-assisted closure device (VAC) for the treatment of infected postpneumonectomy chest cavities. METHOD: A retrospective single institution review of all patients with infected postpneumonectomy chest cavities treated by VAC between 2005 and 2013. Patients underwent surgical debridement of the thoracic cavity, muscle flap closure of the bronchial stump when a fistula was present, and repeated intrathoracic VAC dressings until granulation tissue covered the entire chest cavity. After this, the cavity was obliterated by a Clagett procedure and closed. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (14 men and 7 women) underwent VAC treatment of their infected postpneumonectomy chest cavity. Twelve patients presented with a chronic postpneumonectomy empyema (10 of them with a bronchopleural fistula) and 9 patients with an empyema occurring in the context of necrotizing pneumonia treated by pneumonectomy. In-hospital mortality was 23%. The median duration of VAC therapy was 23 days (range, 4-61 days) and the median number of VAC changes per patient was 6 (range, 2-14 days). Infection control and successful chest cavity closure was achieved in all surviving patients. One adverse VAC treatment-related event was identified (5%). CONCLUSIONS: The intrathoracic VAC application is a safe and efficient treatment of infected postpneumonectomy chest cavities and allows the preservation of chest wall integrity.

Clinical review: practical recommendations on the management of perioperative heart failure in cardiac surgery.

Acute cardiovascular dysfunction occurs perioperatively in more than 20% of cardiosurgical patients, yet current acute heart failure (HF) classification is not applicable to this period. Indicators of major perioperative risk include unstable coronary syndromes, decompensated HF, significant arrhythmias and valvular disease. Clinical risk factors include history of heart disease, compensated HF, cerebrovascular disease, presence of diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency and high-risk surgery. EuroSCORE reliably predicts perioperative cardiovascular alteration in patients aged less than 80 years. Preoperative B-type natriuretic peptide level is an additional risk stratification factor. Aggressively preserving heart function during cardiosurgery is a major goal. Volatile anaesthetics and levosimendan seem to be promising cardioprotective agents, but large trials are still needed to assess the best cardioprotective agent(s) and optimal protocol(s). The aim of monitoring is early detection and assessment of mechanisms of perioperative cardiovascular dysfunction. Ideally, volume status should be assessed by 'dynamic' measurement of haemodynamic parameters. Assess heart function first by echocardiography, then using a pulmonary artery catheter (especially in right heart dysfunction). If volaemia and heart function are in the normal range, cardiovascular dysfunction is very likely related to vascular dysfunction. In treating myocardial dysfunction, consider the following options, either alone or in combination: low-to-moderate doses of dobutamine and epinephrine, milrinone or levosimendan. In vasoplegia-induced hypotension, use norepinephrine to maintain adequate perfusion pressure. Exclude hypovolaemia in patients under vasopressors, through repeated volume assessments. Optimal perioperative use of inotropes/vasopressors in cardiosurgery remains controversial, and further large multinational studies are needed. Cardiosurgical perioperative classification of cardiac impairment should be based on time of occurrence (precardiotomy, failure to wean, postcardiotomy) and haemodynamic severity of the patient's condition (crash and burn, deteriorating fast, stable but inotrope dependent). In heart dysfunction with suspected coronary hypoperfusion, an intra-aortic balloon pump is highly recommended. A ventricular assist device should be considered before end organ dysfunction becomes evident. Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation is an elegant solution as a bridge to recovery and/or decision making. This paper offers practical recommendations for management of perioperative HF in cardiosurgery based on European experts' opinion. It also emphasizes the need for large surveys and studies to assess the optimal way to manage perioperative HF in cardiac surgery.

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients

Introduction: Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporotic fractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition, it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramatically the risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA) has been introduced in DXA device couple years ago to ease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed. To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendation on when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate the ISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often it may change of patient management. Methods: During two months (March and April 2010), a medical questionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patient to check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population. In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine, Femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham, USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performed on the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by two trained Doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitative method of Genant. The reading had been performed when possible between L5 and T4. Results: Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52%) of them (mean age 68.2 ± 11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteria to have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence 39.4%) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sites and 31 (incidence 28.4%) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7% of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture classifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8% did not have osteoporosis nor vertebral fracture. 24.8% of the women had osteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8% of women did have osteoporosis and vertebral fracture (clinical osteoporosis). Conclusion: In conclusion, in 52% of our patients, IVA was needed according to ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patient management either by changing the type of treatment of simply by classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to be an important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yet very often used in most of the centers.

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients.

Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporotic fractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition, it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramatically the risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA) has been introduced in DXA device couple years ago to ease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed. To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendation on when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate the ISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often it may change of patient management. During two months (March and April 2010), a medical questionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patient to check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population. In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine, Femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham, USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performed on the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by two trained Doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitative method of Genant. The reading had been performed when possible between L5 and T4. Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52%) of them (mean age 68.2±11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteria to have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence 39.4%) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sites and 31 (incidence 28.4%) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7% of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture classifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8% did not have osteoporosis not vertebral fracture. 24.8% of the women had osteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8% of women did have osteoporosis but vertebral fracture (Clinical osteoporosis). In conclusion, in 52% of our patients, IVA was needed according to ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patient management either my changing the type of treatment of simply by classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to be an important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yet very often use in most of the centers.

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients

Introduction Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporoticfractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition,it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramaticallythe risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment(IVA) has been introduced in DXA device a couple of years ago toease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed.To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendationon when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate theISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often itmay change of patient management.Methods During two months (March and April 2010), a medicalquestionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patientto check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population.In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine,femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham,USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performedon the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by twotrained doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitativemethod of Genant. The reading had been performed when possiblebetween L5 and T4.Results Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52 %)of them (mean age 68.2 ± 11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteriato have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence39.4 %) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sitesand 31 (incidence 28.4 %) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7 %of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fractureclassifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8 % did not haveosteoporosis and no vertebral fracture. 24.8 % of the women hadosteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8 % of women didhave osteoporosis but vertebral fracture (clinical osteoporosis).Conclusions In 52 % of our patients, IVA was needed accordingto ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patientmanagement either may changing the type of treatment of simplyby classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to bean important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yetvery often use in most of the centers.

Antibiotic lock technique combined with systemic antimicrobial therapy for management of port-related bloodstream infections in onco-haematological patients without catheter removal

Background : Port-related bloodstream infection (PRBSI) is a common complication associated with long-term use of ports systems. Systemic antimicrobial therapy (ST) and removal of the device is the standard management of PRBSI. However, a conservative management combining ST with antibiotic lock therapy (ALT) without port removal has been suggested as an alternative management option for infections due to gram-positive skin colonizers with low virulence.¦Objectives : i) to assess the frequency of management of PRBSI in onco-hematological patients by combining the ALT with ST, without catheter removal and ii) to analyze the efficacy of such an approach.¦Methods : Retrospective observational study over a 6-year period between 2005 and 2010, including patients who where diagnosed with PRBSI and who were treated with ST and ALT. PRBSI diagnosis consisted in clinical signs of bacteremia with blood cultures positive for gram-positive skin colonizers. The primary endpoint was failure to cure the PRBSI.¦Results : 61 port infections were analysed, of which 23 PRBSI met the inclusion criteria. All the patients were suffering from haematological conditions and 75% were neutropenic at the time of PRBSI diagnosis. S. epidermidis was responsible for 91% of PRBSI (21/23). The median duration of ST was 14 days (range 7-35) and the median duration of ALT was 15 days (range 8-41). Failure to cure the PRBSI requiring port removal was observed in 4 patients, but was not associated with severe infectious complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a success rate in port salvage at day 180 (6 months) of 78% (95%CI 59-97%).¦Conclusion : The success rate observed in the present study suggests that combining ST and ALT is an effective option to conservatively treat PRBSI caused by pathogens of low virulence such as S. epidermidis.

Distraction osteogenesis in the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients.

The aim of this study was to systematically review literature reporting on the use of external distraction osteogenesis (DO) and internal DO in the treatment of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft and palate patients. Literature research has been performed using the PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health from 1966 to August 2007. We used cleft lip and palate and distraction osteogenesis as key words. Of the 104 articles found, we only considered the Anglo-Saxon literature, which reported on the correction of the maxillary hypoplasia with DO techniques. A total of 32 studies reported on anteroposterior external DO (27 studies on rigid external device and 5 on face mask), 17 studies reported on anteroposterior internal DO, and 3 studies reported on transverse internal DO have been retained for this review. Despite the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of most of the studies, results showed that external DO with rigid external device and internal DO resulted to be a more reliable and accurate technique than the face mask in the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia in patients with cleft lip and palate. The current review demonstrated that external and internal DO in the treatment of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft and palate patients (1) is a reproducible and valuable alternative to standard orthognathic surgery procedures, (2) allows for a global improvement in facial aesthetic, (3) allows a maxillary correction in patients during the period of mixed dentition, and (4) allows either for an unchanged or better velopharyngeal function.