Search

Intercropping, based on the interplay between cereals and legumes, might be an encouraging approach to improve soil fertility and crop productivity and to guarantee more sustainable farming systems. However, plant consociation is also influenced by the interaction between roots and soil microbial communities, and different plant genotypes might differently respond to this management. Here, a 2-year field study was carried out, verifying the impact of intercropping and the inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on two varieties of durum wheat, using a lentil variety as intercropped plant species, on wheat agronomic parameters and grain features, as well as on microbial communities of soil, rhizosphere and wheat roots. Results showed a genotype effect on diverse agronomic parameters, gluten quality and grain elemental concentrations. Additionally, intercropping and AM fungal inoculation affected and shaped the microbial alpha diversity and composition, especially for the AMF community, at root level. Overall, the effects of the considered treatments (intercropping with lentil and AM fungal inoculation) were noticeably influenced by the specific wheat genotype, suggesting the importance to conduct a careful selection of intercropped genotypes.

Background: PICC-ports may be defined as totally implantable central venous devices inserted in the upper limb using the current state-of-the-art techniques of PICC insertion (ultrasound-guided venipuncture of deep veins of the arm, micro-puncture kits, proper location of the tip preferably by intracavitary ECG), with placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A previous report on breast cancer patients demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these devices, with a very low failure rate. Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study—developed by GAVeCeLT (the Italian Group of Long-Term Venous Access Devices)—investigated the outcomes of PICC-ports in a large cohort of unselected patients. The study included 4480 adult patients who underwent PICC-port insertion in five Italian centers, during a period of 60 months. The primary outcome was device failure, defined as any serious adverse event (SAE) requiring removal. The secondary outcome was the incidence of temporary adverse events (TAE) not requiring removal. Results: The median follow-up was 15.5 months. Device failure occurred in 52 cases (1.2%), the main causes being local infection (n = 7; 0.16%) and CRBSI (n = 19; 0.42%). Symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis occurred in 93 cases (2.1%), but removal was required only in one case (0.02%). Early/immediate and late TAE occurred in 904 cases (20.2%) and in 176 cases (3.9%), respectively. Conclusions: PICC-ports are safe venous access devices that should be considered as an alternative option to traditional arm-ports and chest-ports when planning chemotherapy or other long-term intermittent intravenous treatments.

In the last decade, a new type of brachial port has been introduced in clinical practice, the so-called “PICC-port.” This is a brachial port, but inserted according to the methodologies and technologies currently adopted for the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Several studies have shown that PICC-port insertion is safe, not associated with any relevant immediate or early complication, and that the expected incidence of late complications is significantly lower if compared to “traditional” brachial ports (i.e. inserted without ultrasound guidance). Furthermore, PICC-ports yield excellent esthetic results and are associated with optimal patient compliance. This paper describes an insertion bundle—developed by GAVeCeLT, the Italian Group of Long Term Venous Access Devices, and nicknamed “SIP-Port” (Safe Insertion of PICC-Ports)—which consists of few evidence-based strategies aiming to further minimize all immediate, early, or late complications potentially associated with PICC-port insertion. Also, this insertion bundle has been developed for the purpose of defining more closely the differences between a traditional brachial port and a PICC-port. The SIP-Port bundle is currently adopted by all training courses on PICC-port insertion held by GAVeCeLT. It includes eight steps: (1) preprocedural ultrasound assessment utilizing the RaPeVA (Rapid Peripheral Venous Assessment) protocol; (2) appropriate skin antiseptic technique and maximal barrier precautions; (3) choice of appropriate vein, in terms of caliber and site; (4) clear identification of the median nerve and of the brachial artery during the venipuncture; (5) ultrasound-guided puncture and cannulation of the vein; (6) ultrasound-guided tip navigation; (7) intra-procedural assessment of tip location by intracavitary ECG or by trans-thoracic echocardiography; (8) appropriate creation and closure of the subcutaneous pocket.

Insertion of venous access devices (VAD) is usually considered a procedure with low risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, insertion of some devices is invasive enough to be associated with bleeding, especially in patients with previous coagulopathy or in treatment with antithrombotic drugs for cardiovascular disease. The current practices of platelet/plasma transfusion in coagulopathic patients and of temporary suspension of the antithrombotic treatment before VAD insertion are based on local policies and are often inadequately supported by evidence, since many of the clinical studies on this topic are not recent and are not of high quality. Furthermore, the protocols of antithrombotic treatment have changed during the last decade, after the introduction of new oral anticoagulant drugs. Though some guidelines address some of these issues in relation with specific procedures (port insertion, etc.), no evidence-based document covering all the aspects of this clinical problem is currently available. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to develop a consensus on the management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring VADs. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included vascular access specialists, surgeons, intensivists, anesthetists, cardiologists, vascular medicine experts, nephrologists, infective disease specialists, and thrombotic disease specialists) has structured the final recommendations as detailed answers to three sets of questions: (1) which is an appropriate classification of VAD-related procedures based on the specific bleeding risk? (2) Which is the appropriate management of the patient with bleeding disorders candidate to VAD insertion/removal? (3) Which is the appropriate management of the patient on antithrombotic treatment candidate to VAD insertion/removal? Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendation

Cats Felis catus, in all their forms (domestic, free‐roaming/stray and feral), have been identified as a major global threat to biodiversity, especially birds and small mammals. However, there has been little previous consideration of the extent and impact of predation of bats by cats, or of whether specific characteristics make certain species of bats particularly vulnerable to predation by cats. We reviewed the impact of cats on bats, based on a collation of scientific literature and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List database. Our aim was to produce a synthesis of the extent to which cats prey upon and threaten bats. We also collated available data on cat diet, which provide information on predation rates of bats by cats. Few studies (n = 44) have identified bat species preyed upon or threatened by cats, with a disproportionate number of studies from islands. In these studies, 86 bat species (about 7% of the global extant tally) are reported as preyed upon or threatened by cats, and about one quarter of these species are listed as Near Threatened or threatened (IUCN categories Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable). In IUCN Red List assessments, cats are more frequently mentioned as a threat to threatened or Near Threatened bat species than to non‐threatened species (IUCN category Least Concern). In studies reporting on the incidence of bats in cat dietary samples (scats, stomachs and guts), the frequency of occurrence of bats in samples averaged 0.7 ± 2.1% (mean ± standard deviation; n = 102). Many studies had sample sizes that were too small to be likely to detect bats. All forms of cat are reported to kill bats, and such predation has been reported in all major terrestrial habitats. We conclude that predation by cats is an under‐appreciated threat to the world’s bat species.