Search

Michal Zygarowicz,1,* Joanna Kacperczyk-Bartnik,2,3,* Janusz Sierdzinski,4 Cezary Wojtyla,5,6 Piotr Pierzynski,5,6 Grzegorz Manka,7 Mariusz Kiecka,7 Robert Z Spaczynski,8 Piotr Piekarski,9 Beata Banaszewska,10 Artur Jakimiuk,11,12 Tadeusz Issat,13 Wojciech Rokita14,15 ,† Jakub Mlodawski,14,15 Maria Szubert,3,16,17 Piotr Sieroszewski,16,18 Grzegorz Raba,19,20 Kamil Szczupak,19,20 Tomasz Kluz,21 Marek Kluza,21 Michal Lipa,3,22 Damian Warzecha,5,22 Miroslaw Wielgos,23,24 Ewa Koc-Zorawska,25,26 Marcin Zorawski,26,27 Piotr Laudanski5,6,28 1Students’ Scientific Group Affiliated to the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; 2II Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; 3Club 35. Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, Wrocław, Poland; 4Department of Medical Informatics and Telemedicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; 5OVIklinika Infertility Center, Warsaw, Poland; 6Women’s Health Research Institute, Calisia University, Kalisz, Poland; 7Angelius Provita Hospital, Katowice, Poland; 8Center for Gynecology, Obstetrics and Infertility Treatment Pastelova, Poznan, Poland; 9Division of Infertility and Reproductive Endocrinology, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland; 10Chair and Department of Laboratory Diagnostics, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland; 11Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior, Warsaw, Poland; 12Center of Reproductive Health, Institute of Mother and Child in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; 13Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Mother and Child in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; 14Collegium Medicum Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Kielce, Poland; 15Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Provincial Combined Hospital in Kielce, Kielce, Poland; 16Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 17Department of Surgical Gynecology and Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 18Department of Fetal Medicine and Gynecology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 19Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Provincial Hospital, Przemysl, Poland; 20Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rzeszow, Rzeszow, Poland; 21Department of Gynecology, Gynecology Oncology and Obstetrics, Institute of Medical Sciences, Medical College of Rzeszow University, Rzeszow, Poland; 22Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Warsaw Southern Hospital, Warsaw, Poland; 23Premium Medical, Warsaw, Poland; 24Faculty of Medicine, Lazarski University, Warsaw, Poland; 25II Department of Nephrology, Hypertension and Internal Medicine with Dialysis Unit, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland; 26The Academy of Applied Medical and Social Sciences, Elbląg, Poland; 27Department of Cardiology, Lipidology and Internal Medicine with Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland; 28Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland*These authors contributed equally to this work†Professor Wojciech Rokita passed away on March 18, 2020Correspondence: Piotr Laudanski, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Medical University of Warsaw, Kondratowicza Street 8, Warsaw, 03-242, Poland, Tel +48 22 326 53 80, Email piotr.laudanski@wum.edu.plIntroduction: Endometriosis is an inflammatory-related reproductive age disease characterized by the presence of endometrial cells outside the uterine cavity. Current laboratory practice does not provide specific markers for detecting and assessing the advancement of endometriosis in either plasma or peritoneal fluid. The severity of disease is assessed in stages from I to IV based on the results of laparoscopic inspection. The protein annexin A2 (ANXA2) has been reported to be associated with inflammatory processes.Aim of the Study: The study aimed to investigate and compare ANXA2 protein concentration using the ELISA method in plasma and peritoneal fluid in a group of women with endometriosis compared to controls.Materials and Methods: Biological material was collected during a multicenter, cross-sectional study, which was conducted at eight departments during elective laparoscopy from 53 women with and 40 women without endometriosis. Patients were divided by endometriosis stage and infertility status, and then compared with subgroups. Analysis included the Chi-square test for categorical variables, Mann–Whitney U-test and two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables.Results: Women with endometriosis had significantly elevated plasma ANXA2 levels compared to women without endometriosis (mean concentrations 28.69 vs 19.61 ng/L, p=0.01). Differences in peritoneal fluid ANXA2 levels were statistically insignificant (mean concentrations of 23.7 vs 22.97 ng/L, p=0.06). Plasma concentrations in patients with stage III and IV endometriosis were significantly higher compared to controls (mean concentrations of 24.19 vs 19.71 ng/L, p=0.03). No such differences were observed in plasma when comparing stages I–II vs III–IV, and stages I–II vs controls (mean concentrations of 33.82 vs 24.19 ng/L, p=0.72 and 33.82 vs 19.71 ng/L, p=0.12, respectively). Comparison of samples from patients with or without infertility, primary or secondary infertility, endometriosis with or without infertility, and non-endometriosis with or without infertility showed no significant differences in the plasma nor in the peritoneal fluid concentrations.Conclusion: ANXA2 is possibly involved in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, especially in advanced stages. Due to the limited group of tested samples, further studies are needed to confirm its role.Keywords: annexin A2, endometriosis, infertility

Objectives: There have been significant advances in the medical management of severe postpartum hemorrhage (sPPH) over recent decades, which is reflected in numerous published guidelines. To date, many of the currently available national and international guidelines recommend recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) to be used only at a very late stage in the course of sPPH, as a "last resort", before or after hysterectomy. Based on new safety data, rFVIIa has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Swissmedic for use in sPPH, if uterotonics are insufficient to achieve hemostasis, which in fact is significantly earlier in the course of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). We therefore aimed to develop expert consensus guidance as a step toward standardizing care with the use of rFVIIa for clinicians managing women experiencing life-threatening sPPH. Methods: The consensus process consisted of one face-to-face meeting with a group of nine experts, including eight obstetrician-gynecologists and a hematologist highly experienced in sPPH care in tertiary care perinatal centers. The panel was representative of multidisciplinary expertise in the European obstetrics community and provided consensus opinion in answer to pre-defined questions around clinical practice with rFVIIa in the management of sPPH. Recommendations have been based on current national and international guidelines, extensive clinical experience, and consensus opinion, as well as the availability of efficacy and new safety data. Results: The expert panel developed 17 consensus statements in response to the 13 pre-defined questions on the use of rFVIIa in the management of sPPH including: available efficacy and safety data and the need for interdisciplinary expertise between obstetricians, anesthesiologists, and hematologists in the management of sPPH. Based on novel data, the experts recommend: (1) earlier administration of rFVIIa in patients with sPPH who do not respond to uterotonic administration to optimize the efficacy of rFVIIa; (2) the importance of hematological parameter prerequisites prior to the administration of rFVIIa to maximize efficacy; and (3) continued evaluation or initiation of further invasive procedures according to standard practice. Furthermore, recommendations on the timing of rFVIIa treatment within the sPPH management algorithm are outlined in a range of specified clinical scenarios and settings, including vaginal delivery, cesarean section, and smaller birthing units before transfer to a tertiary care center. The panel agreed that according to available, and new data, as well as real-world experience, there is no evidence that the use of rFVIIa in patients with sPPH increases the risk of thromboembolism. The authors acknowledge that there is still limited clinical effectiveness data, as well as pharmacoeconomic data, on the use of rFVIIa in sPPH, and recommend further clinical trials and efficacy investigation. Conclusions: This expert panel provides consensus guidance based on recently available data, clinical experience, and expert opinion, augmented by the recent approval of rFVIIa for use in sPPH by the EMA. These consensus statements are intended to support clinical care for sPPH and may help to provide the impetus and a starting point for updates to existing clinical practice guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the clinical effectiveness of the two most commonly used LMWHs, dalteparin (DALT) and enoxaparin (ENOX), in thromboprophylaxis of elective total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR).