A call for uniform reporting standards in studies assessing endovascular treatment for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries

Endovascular therapy is a rapidly evolving field for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease, and a magnitude of studies reporting on various modern revascularization concepts have been recently published. Thus, studies assessing the efficacy of endovascular therapy of peripheral arteries do not operate with uniformly defined endpoints, rendering a direct comparison of studies difficult. The purpose of this consensus statement is to highlight differences in the terminology used in the current literature and to propose some standardized criteria that must be considered when reporting results of endovascular revascularization for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries.

Peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: high noon for uniform reporting standards

In the era of evidence based medicine, proof of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness need to be firmly based on transparent comparisons between various therapeutic alternatives. Standards for reports are a prerequisite for comparisons across reports and should reflect the patient's perspective. According standards have been successfully introduced in many fields of modern medicine, but not yet for peripheral endovascular interventions. Given the overwhelmingly increasing importance of endovascular revascularization in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia, this report provides an updated outline of the heterogeneity of current reporting practice and highlights the need for uniform reporting standards.

Subject-ventilator synchrony during neural versus pneumatically triggered non-invasive helmet ventilation

OBJECTIVE: Patient-ventilator synchrony during non-invasive pressure support ventilation with the helmet device is often compromised when conventional pneumatic triggering and cycling-off were used. A possible solution to this shortcoming is to replace the pneumatic triggering with neural triggering and cycling-off-using the diaphragm electrical activity (EA(di)). This signal is insensitive to leaks and to the compliance of the ventilator circuit. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, experimental study. SETTING: University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS AND SUBJECTS: Seven healthy human volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: Pneumatic triggering and cycling-off were compared to neural triggering and cycling-off during NIV delivered with the helmet. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Triggering and cycling-off delays, wasted efforts, and breathing comfort were determined during restricted breathing efforts (<20% of voluntary maximum EA(di)) with various combinations of pressure support (PSV) (5, 10, 20 cm H(2)O) and respiratory rates (10, 20, 30 breath/min). During pneumatic triggering and cycling-off, the subject-ventilator synchrony was progressively more impaired with increasing respiratory rate and levels of PSV (p < 0.001). During neural triggering and cycling-off, effect of increasing respiratory rate and levels of PSV on subject-ventilator synchrony was minimal. Breathing comfort was higher during neural triggering than during pneumatic triggering (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates in healthy subjects that subject-ventilator synchrony, trigger effort, and breathing comfort with a helmet interface are considerably less impaired during increasing levels of PSV and respiratory rates with neural triggering and cycling-off, compared to conventional pneumatic triggering and cycling-off.