Coronary artery disease in patients undergoing TAVI: why, what, when and how to treat.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic valve stenosis (AS) are frequently coexisting. It has been reported that CAD is present in 40% of patients with AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, and in up to 60% of patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Elderly patients with CAD and AS are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles as compared to patients with isolated AS, increasing the complexity of their therapeutic management. In patients with CAD and AS the combination of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement has been shown to improve survival. Therefore, CABG is recommended in patients with CAD and AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement according to current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA). Conversely, whether the presence of CAD has any prognostic implications in elderly patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI is still a matter of debate. Of note, according to the most recent ESC guidelines on myocardial revascularisation, percutaneous revascularisation should be considered in patients undergoing TAVI with a stenosis >70% in proximal coronary segments (class IIa, level of evidence C). The aim of this article is to provide an overview of evidence supporting the need for coronary revascularisation in patients with severe AS and CAD undergoing TAVI, and to summarise optimal timing and treatment modalities for percutaneous coronary interventions in these patients.

Preinterventional screening of the TAVI patient: how to choose the suitable patient and the best procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a novel therapy, which has transformed the management of inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). It is also a proven and less invasive alternative therapeutic option for high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with severe AS who are otherwise eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. Patient age is not strictly a limitation for TAVI but since this procedure is currently restricted to high-risk and inoperable patients, it follows that most patients selected for TAVI are at an advanced age. Patient frailty and co-morbidities need to be assessed and a clinical judgment made on whether the patient will gain a measureable improvement in their quality of life. Risk stratification has assumed a central role in selecting suitable patients and surgical risk algorithms have proven helpful in this regard. However, limitations exist with these risk models, which must be understood in the context of TAVI. When making final treatment decisions, it is essential that a collaborative multidisciplinary "heart team" be involved and this is stressed in the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Choosing the best procedure is contingent upon anatomical feasibility, and multimodality imaging has emerged as an integral component of the pre-interventional screening process in this regard. The transfemoral route is now considered the default approach although vascular complications remain a concern. A minimal vessel diameter of 6 mm is required for currently commercial available vascular introducer sheaths. Several alternative access routes are available to choose from when confronted with difficult iliofemoral anatomy such as severe peripheral vascular disease or diffuse circumferential vessel calcification. The degree of aortic valve leaflet and annular calcification also needs to be assessed as the latter is a risk factor for post-procedural paravalvular aortic regurgitation. The ultimate goal of patient selection is to achieve the highest procedural success rate while minimizing complications and to choose patients most likely to derive tangible benefit from this procedure.

Clinical herniation – how to improve differentiation between WFNS grade IV and V

Objective: Current data show a favorable outcome after poor grade subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) in up to 50% of patients. This limits the use of the WFNS scale for drawing treatment decisions. We therefore analyzed how clinical signs of herniation might improve the existing WFNS grading. Therefore we compared the current WFNS grading and a modified WFNS grading with respect to outcome. Method: We performed a retrospective study including 182 poor grade SAH patients. Patients were graded according to the original WFNS scale and additionally into a modified classification the “WFNS herniation” (WFNSh grade IV: no herniation; grade V clinical signs of herniation). Outcome was compared between these two grading systems with respect to the dichotomized modified Rankin scale after 6 months. Results: The WFNS and WFNSh showed a positive predictive value (PPV) for poor outcome of 74.3% (OR 3.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.94, 7.54) and 85.7% (OR 8.27, 95% CI=3.78, 19.47), respectively. With respect to mortality the PPV was 68.3% (OR 3.9, 95% CI=2.01, 7.69) for the WFNS grade V and 77.9% (OR 6.22, 95% CI=3.07, 13.14) for the WFNSh grade V. Conclusions: Using positive clinical signs of herniation instead of “no response to pain stimuli” (motor Glasgow Coma Scale Score) can improve WFNS V grading. Using this modification, prediction of poor outcome or death improves.

Catching Reality or Bowing Disciplines: How to Move the Study of Citizenship

In his contribution, Joppke justifies his selection of foundational scholars by linking each to what he sees as the three key facets of citizenship: status, rights and identity. Maarten Vink explicitly links his research agenda to the first, status, and outlines why it is so important. In identifying three facets of citizenship, Joppke acknowledges that some academics would include political participation, but he ultimately decides against it. But here we can, and should, broaden citizenship studies by bringing in insights from the behavioral politics tradition in domestic politics - when and why people engage in political acts - and from the social movements literature in sociology. I believe that the American debate on immigration reform, admittedly stalled, would not have advanced as far as it has without the social movement activism of DREAMers - unauthorized young people pushing for a path to citizenship - and the belief that Barack Obama won re-election in part because of the Latino vote. Importantly, one type of political activism demands formal citizenship, the other does not. As many contributors note, the “national models” approach has had a significant impact on citizenship studies. Whether one views such models through a cultural, institutional or historical lens, this tends to be a top-down, macro-level framework. What about immigrants’ agency? In Canada, although the ruling Conservative government is shifting citizenship discourse to a more traditional language - as Winter points out - it has not reduced immigration, ended dual citizenship, or eliminated multiculturalism, all goals of the Reform Party that the current prime minister once helped build. “Lock-in” effects (or policy feedback loops) based on high immigrant naturalization and the coming of age of a second-generation with citizenship also d emands study, in North America and elsewhere. Much of the research thus far suggests that political decisions over citizenship status and rights do not seem linked to immigrants’ political activism. State-centered decision-making may have characterized policy in the early post-World War II period in Europe (and East Asia?), but does it continue to hold today? Majority publics and immigrant-origin residents are increasingly politicized around citizenship and immigration. Does immigrant agency extend citizenship status, rights and identity to those born outside the polity? Is electoral power key, or is protest necessary? How is citizenship practiced, and contested, irrespective of formal status? These are important and understudied empirical questions, ones that demand theoretical creativity - across sub-fields and disciplines - in conceptualizing and understanding citizenship in contemporary times.

What do brain network interactions tell about cognitive processes? How to seek causality?

Optimal adjustment of brain networks allows the biased processing of information in response to the demand of environments and is therefore prerequisite for adaptive behaviour. It is widely shown that a biased state of networks is associated with a particular cognitive process. However, those associations were identified by backward categorization of trials and cannot provide a causal association with cognitive processes. This problem still remains a big obstacle to advance the state of our field in particular human cognitive neuroscience. In my talk, I will present two approaches to address the causal relationships between brain network interactions and behaviour. Firstly, we combined connectivity analysis of fMRI data and a machine leaning method to predict inter-individual differences of behaviour and responsiveness to environmental demands. The connectivity-based classification approach outperforms local activation-based classification analysis, suggesting that interactions in brain networks carry information of instantaneous cognitive processes. Secondly, we have recently established a brand new method combining transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and EEG. We use the method to measure signal transmission between brain areas while introducing extrinsic oscillatory brain activity and to study causal association between oscillatory activity and behaviour. We show that phase-matched oscillatory activity creates the phase-dependent modulation of signal transmission between brain areas, while phase-shifted oscillatory activity blunts the phase-dependent modulation. The results suggest that phase coherence between brain areas plays a cardinal role in signal transmission in the brain networks. In sum, I argue that causal approaches will provide more concreate backbones to cognitive neuroscience.

Soil and land information: How to support decision-making?

Soils are fundamental to ensuring water, energy and food security. Within the context of sus- tainable food production, it is important to share knowledge on existing and emerging tech- nologies that support land and soil monitoring. Technologies, such as remote sensing, mobile soil testing, and digital soil mapping, have the potential to identify degraded and non- /little-responsive soils, and may also provide a basis for programmes targeting the protection and rehabilitation of soils. In the absence of such information, crop production assessments are often not based on the spatio-temporal variability in soil characteristics. In addition, uncertain- ties in soil information systems are notable and build up when predictions are used for monitor- ing soil properties or biophysical modelling. Consequently, interpretations of model-based results have to be done cautiously. As such they provide a scientific, but not always manage- able, basis for farmers and/or policymakers. In general, the key incentives for stakeholders to aim for sustainable management of soils and more resilient food systems are complex at farm as well as higher levels. The same is true of drivers of soil degradation. The decision- making process aimed at sustainable soil management, be that at farm or higher level, also in- volves other goals and objectives valued by stakeholders, e.g. land governance, improved envi- ronmental quality, climate change adaptation and mitigation etc. In this dialogue session we will share ideas on recent developments in the discourse on soils, their functions and the role of soil and land information in enhancing food system resilience.