Search

Background: Telemedicine is increasingly used in several fields of healthcare, including vascular medicine. This study aimed to investigate the views of experts and propose clinical practice recommendations on the possible applications of telemedicine in vascular medicine. Methods: A clinical guidance group proposed a set of 67 clinical practice recommendations based on the synthesis of current evidence and expert opinion. The Telemedicine Vascular Medicine Working Group included 32 experts from Europe evaluating the appropriateness of each clinical practice recommendation based on published RAND/UCLA methodology in two rounds. Results: In the first round, 60.9% of clinical practice recommendations were rated as appropriate, 35.9% as uncertain, and 3.1% as inappropriate. The strongest agreement (a median value of 10) was reached on statements regarding the usefulness of telemedicine during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, its usefulness for geographical areas that are difficult to access, and the superiority of video calls compared to phone calls only. The lowest degree of agreement (a median value of 2) was reported on statements regarding the utility of telemedicine being limited to the COVID-19 pandemic and regarding the applicability of teleconsultation in the diagnosis and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm. In the second round, 11 statements were re-evaluated to reduce variability. Conclusions: This study highlights the levels of agreement and the points that raise concern on the use of telemedicine in vascular medicine. It emphasizes the need for further clarification on various issues, including infrastructure, logistics, and legislation.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in lung cancer patients. Lung cancer confers an increased risk of thrombosis compared to other solid malignancies across all stages of the disease. Newer treatment agents, including checkpoint immunotherapy and targeted agents, may further increase the risk of CAT. Different risk-assessment models, such as the Khorana Risk Score, and newer approaches that incorporate genetic risk factors have been used in lung cancer patients to evaluate the risk of thrombosis. The management of CAT is based on the results of large prospective trials, which show similar benefits to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory patients. The anticoagulation agent and duration of therapy should be personalized according to lung cancer stage and histology, the presence of driver mutations and use of antineoplastic therapy, including recent curative lung surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Treatment options should be evaluated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been shown to impact the thrombotic risk in cancer patients. This review focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, novel predictive scores and management of CAT in patients with active lung cancer, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Abstract The local immune-inflammatory response elicited by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is still poorly described, as well as the extent to which its characteristics may be associated with the outcome of critical Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this prospective monocenter study, all consecutive COVID-19 critically ill patients admitted from February to December 2020 and explored by fiberoptic bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) were included. Biological assays, including digital ELISA cytokine profiling and targeted eicosanoid metabolomic analysis, were performed on paired blood and BAL fluid (BALF). Clinical outcome was assessed through the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at the 28th day (D28) following the admission to intensive care unit. A D28-WHO-CPS value higher than 5 defined a poor outcome. Seventy-six patients were included, 45 (59%) had a poor day-28 outcome. As compared to their counterparts, patients with D28-WHO-CPS > 5 exhibited a neutrophil-predominant bronchoalveolar phenotype, with a higher BALF neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, a blunted local type I interferon response, a decompartimentalized immune-inflammatory response illustrated by lower BALF/blood ratio of concentrations of IL-6 (1.68 [0.30–4.41] vs. 9.53 [2.56–19.1]; p = 0.001), IL-10, IL-5, IL-22 and IFN-γ, and a biological profile of vascular endothelial injury illustrated by a higher blood concentration of VEGF and higher blood and/or BALF concentrations of several vasoactive eicosanoids. In critically ill COVID-19 patients, we identified bronchoalveolar and blood immune-inflammatory biomarker signature associated with poor 28-day outcome.

Introduction Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by thrombosis (arterial, venous or small vessel) or obstetrical events and persistent antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), according to the Sydney classification criteria. Many studies have performed cluster analyses among patients with primary APS and associated autoimmune disease, but none has focused solely on primary APS. We aimed to perform a cluster analysis among patients with primary APS and asymptomatic aPL carriers without any autoimmune disease, to assess prognostic value.Methods In this multicentre French cohort study, we included all patients with persistent APS antibodies (Sydney criteria) measured between January 2012 and January 2019. We excluded all patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or other systemic autoimmune diseases. We performed hierarchical cluster analysis on the factor analysis of mixed data coordinates results with baseline patient characteristics to generate clusters.Results We identified four clusters: cluster 1, comprising ‘asymptomatic aPL carriers’, with low risk of events during follow-up; cluster 2, the ‘male thrombotic phenotype’, with older patients and more venous thromboembolic events; cluster 3, the ‘female obstetrical phenotype’, with obstetrical and thrombotic events; and cluster 4, ‘high-risk APS’, which included younger patients with more frequent triple positivity, antinuclear antibodies, non-criteria manifestations and arterial events. Regarding survival analyses, asymptomatic aPL carriers relapsed less frequently than the others, but no other differences in terms of relapse rates or deaths were found between clusters.Conclusions We identified four clusters among patients with primary APS, one of which was ‘high-risk APS’. Clustering-based treatment strategies should be explored in future prospective studies.

Objective Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by the association of thromboembolic and/or obstetrical clinical manifestations and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of the triple-positive profile in a cohort of 204 APS patients.Methods We conducted a retrospective study, including patients with primary or secondary APS, meeting the Sydney criteria with at least one thrombotic and/or obstetrical complication. Clinical characteristics and the risk of relapse (defined by the occurrence of a new thrombotic event and/or a new adverse obstetrical event) between triple-positive and non-triple-positive APS patients were compared.Results 204 patients were included in our study, 68 were triple-positive and 136 were single or double positive. 122 patients (59.8%) had primary APS. 67 patients (32.8%) had obstetrical APS, with a higher rate among triple-positive patients (45.6% vs 26.5%, p=0.010), and 170 patients (83.3%) had thrombotic APS, without difference between triple-positive and others. Thrombotic events were more often venous (56.4%) than arterial (37.7%). Triple-positive patients had more placental complications than others (17.6% vs 2.9%, p=0.001) and more non-criteria events (48.5% vs 25.7%, p=0.002). Among non-criteria events, there was a higher frequency of Sneddon syndrome in triple-positive patients (7.4% vs 0.7%, p=0.028). The relapse rate was higher in triple-positive patients than in others (63.2% vs 39,7%, p=0002). In multivariate analysis, the triple-positive profile was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.55; p=0.031).Conclusion The triple-positivity is associated with a higher risk of relapse and obstetrical complications.

Abstract Background From this retrospective study, we aimed to (1) describe the prevalence and characteristics of non-criteria features in primary antiphospholipid syndrome (p-APS) and (2) determine their prognostic value. Methods This retrospective French multicenter cohort study included all patients diagnosed with p-APS (Sydney criteria) between January 2012 and January 2019. We used Kaplan-Meier and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to compare the incidence of relapse in p-APS with and without non-criteria manifestations. Results One hundred and seventy-nine patients with p-APS were included during the study time, with a median age of 52.50 years [39.0; 65.25] and mainly women (n = 112; 62.6%). Among them, forty-three patients (24.0%) presented at least one non-criteria manifestation during the follow-up: autoimmune cytopenias (n = 17; 39.5%), Libman Sachs endocarditis (n = 5; 11.6%), APS nephropathy (n = 4; 9.3%), livedo reticularis (n = 8; 18.6%), and neurological manifestations (n = 12; 27.9%). In comparison to p-APS without any non-criteria manifestations (n = 136), p-APS with non-criteria features had more arterial thrombosis (n = 24; 55.8% vs n = 48; 35.3%; p = 0.027) and more frequent pre-eclampsia (n = 6; 14.3% vs n = 4; 3.1%; p = 0.02). The prevalence of triple positivity was significantly increased in patients with non-criteria features (n = 20; 47.6% vs n = 25; 19.8%; p = 0.001). Patients with p-APS and non-criteria manifestations (n = 43) received significantly more additional therapies combined with vitamin K antagonists and/or antiaggregants. Catastrophic APS (CAPS) tended to be more frequent in p-APS with non-criteria features (n = 2; 5.1% vs none; p = 0.074). The p-APS with non-criteria manifestations had significantly increased rates of relapse (n = 20; 58.8% vs 33; 33.7%; p = 0.018) in bivariate analysis, but in survival analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) of relapse was not significantly different between the two groups (HR at 1.34 [0.67; 2.68]; p = 0.40). Conclusions The presence of non-criteria features is important to consider, as they are associated with particular clinical and laboratory profiles, increased risk of relapse, and need for additional therapies. Prospective studies are necessary to better stratify the prognosis and the management of p-APS.

Abstract Background Sickle-cell anaemia is a widespread genetic disease prevalent worldwide among African and African-American populations. The pathogenesis is most often revealed by pulmonary conditions, including acute thoracic syndrome, which is affecting the life expectancy of these populations. The global spread of CoV2-SARS infection with a respiratory tropism, endothelial damages and procoagulant status endangers the SCD population. However, with only a few case reports, consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic on SCD population remain poorly known. Case presentation We report a case of a 33-year-old man with a history of homozygous SS homozygous sickle cell anemia who consulted on March 24, 2020 for febrile dyspnea 11 days after the onset of symptoms. A nasopharyngeal swab was positive for SARS-CoV-2. His respiratory status worsened rapidly in the emergency room and then in ICU leading to severe ARDS requiring intubation, curarization, and venovenous ECMO. Hematologically, severe hemolysis associated with major thrombocytopenia without documented spinal cord injury was noted. Several transfusion exchanges are performed. The evolution was finally slowly favorable and led to discharge from the intensive care unit and then from the hospital. Conclusions This case recalls the importance of an increased prevention policy against COVID-19among the SCD population. In addition, from a therapeutic point of view, it advocates (1) a high preventive anticoagulation from the outset according to the level of D-dimers (2) the use of venovenous ECMO in this particular case, whereas this technique has had rather disappointing results in acute chest syndromes. (3) Unexpectedly, our patient did not develop pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and acute cor pulmonale (ACP), whereas this is a common feature of ARDS during SCD. These last two observations suggest a different pathophysiology of pulmonary disorders in SCD patients in the case of SARS COv2. It could be associated with marked hypoxemia secondary to pulmonary vascular vasodilation.

Rationale Acute pulmonary hypertension (PH) may develop during sickle-cell acute chest syndrome (ACS), and is associated with an increased mortality. Its mechanisms remain poorly known. We questioned whether there is endothelial dysfunction and hypercoagulability in severe ACS, with and without acute PH. Methods In a prospective monocentre cohort follow-up study, all sickle-cell adult patients with ACS admitted to the intensive care unit underwent transthoracic echocardiography and measurement of biomarkers of coagulation, endothelial activation and platelet and erythrocyte activation. Acute PH was defined as a high echocardiographic probability of PH. The biological profiles of sickle-cell patients were analysed at the time of ACS, contrasting with the existence of acute PH, and compared with steady-state and with non-sickle-cell controls (healthy subjects and community-acquired pneumonia). Results Most patients (36 patients with 39 ACS episodes; 23 males; median age 27 years) had thoracic pain, dyspnoea and computed tomography scan lung consolidation. Acute PH was diagnosed in seven (19%) patients. Erythrocyte- and platelet-derived microparticles and the pro-coagulant activity of microparticles were higher in ACS patients with acute PH, compared with their counterparts. Compared with healthy controls, ACS patients had higher levels of tissue factor, fibrin monomers, D-dimer, release of pro-coagulant microparticles and erythrocyte- and platelet-derived microparticles. Compared with community-acquired pneumonia patients, ACS patients had increased levels of fibrin monomers and erythrocyte- and platelet-derived microparticles. Conclusions Severe ACS is characterised by endothelial dysfunction and hypercoagulability, with a marked pro-coagulant profile in cases of associated PH.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients.