University Hospital Avicenne

Bobigny, France

University Hospital Avicenne

Bobigny, France

Time filter

Source Type

Cabanes L.,University of Paris Descartes | Chalas C.,University of Paris Descartes | Christin-Maitre S.,University Hospital St Antoine | Donadille B.,University Hospital St Antoine | And 12 more authors.
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology | Year: 2010

Following the death in France by acute aortic dissection of two women with Turner syndrome who were pregnant following oocyte donation, the Director of the French Biomedicine Agency (Agence de la biomédecine) sent a letter to the President of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (FCOG). He requested the College's expertise in reviewing point-by-point the cases and risk factors and in determining whether there are grounds to propose additional measures complementary to the recommendations made by the Haute autorité de santé or French National Authority for Health (HAS) in 2008 in terms of indication and monitoring of patients. A joint practice committee of the FCOG, the French Cardiologic Society, the French Chest and Cardiovascular Surgery Society, the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, the French Endocrine Society, the French study group for oocyte donation, and the Biomedicine Agency defined the exact questions to be put to the experts, chose these experts, followed them up and drafted the synthesis of recommendations resulting from their work. The questions concerned the check-up before pregnancy of Turner patients, contraindication and acceptance of pregnancy, information for the patients, and recommendations for antenatal care, delivery and postnatal follow-up. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.


Volpicelli G.,University of Turin | Elbarbary M.,King Saud University | Blaivas M.,Northside Hospital Forsyth | Lichtenstein D.A.,Service de Reanimation Medicale | And 24 more authors.
Intensive Care Medicine | Year: 2012

Background: The purpose of this study is to provide evidence-based and expert consensus recommendations for lung ultrasound with focus on emergency and critical care settings. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of 28 experts from eight countries was involved. Literature was reviewed from January 1966 to June 2011. Consensus members searched multiple databases including Pubmed, Medline, OVID, Embase, and others. The process used to develop these evidence-based recommendations involved two phases: determining the level of quality of evidence and developing the recommendation. The quality of evidence is assessed by the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method. However, the GRADE system does not enforce a specific method on how the panel should reach decisions during the consensus process. Our methodology committee decided to utilize the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and decisions/ consensus. Results: Seventythree proposed statements were examined and discussed in three conferences held in Bologna, Pisa, and Rome. Each conference included two rounds of face-to-face modified Delphi technique. Anonymous panel voting followed each round. The panel did not reach an agreement and therefore did not adopt any recommendations for six statements. Weak/ conditional recommendations were made for 2 statements, and strong recommendations were made for the remaining 65 statements. The statements were then recategorized and grouped to their current format. Internal and external peer-review processes took place before submission of the recommendations. Updates will occur at least every 4 years or whenever significant major changes in evidence appear. Conclusions: This document reflects the overall results of the first consensus conference on point-of-care lung ultrasound. Statements were discussed and elaborated by experts who published the vast majority of papers on clinical use of lung ultrasound in the last 20 years. Recommendations were produced to guide implementation, development, and standardization of lung ultrasound in all relevant settings. © Copyright jointly held by Springer and ESICM 2012.


Via G.,Servizio di Anestesia e Rianimazione 1 | Hussain A.,Cardiac Guard | Wells M.,University of Witwatersrand | Reardon R.,University of Minnesota | And 28 more authors.
Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography | Year: 2014

Background Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is a simplified, clinician-performed application of echocardiography that is rapidly expanding in use, especially in emergency and critical care medicine. Performed by appropriately trained clinicians, typically not cardiologists, FoCUS ascertains the essential information needed in critical scenarios for time-sensitive clinical decision making. A need exists for quality evidence-based review and clinical recommendations on its use. Methods The World Interactive Network Focused on Critical UltraSound conducted an international, multispecialty, evidence-based, methodologically rigorous consensus process on FoCUS. Thirty-three experts from 16 countries were involved. A systematic multiple-database, double-track literature search (January 1980 to September 2013) was performed. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of available evidence and subsequent development of the recommendations. Evidence-based panel judgment and consensus was collected and analyzed by means of the RAND appropriateness method. Results During four conferences (in New Delhi, Milan, Boston, and Barcelona), 108 statements were elaborated and discussed. Face-to-face debates were held in two rounds using the modified Delphi technique. Disagreement occurred for 10 statements. Weak or conditional recommendations were made for two statements and strong or very strong recommendations for 96. These recommendations delineate the nature, applications, technique, potential benefits, clinical integration, education, and certification principles for FoCUS, both for adults and pediatric patients. Conclusions This document presents the results of the first International Conference on FoCUS. For the first time, evidence-based clinical recommendations comprehensively address this branch of point-of-care ultrasound, providing a framework for FoCUS to standardize its application in different clinical settings around the world. © 2014 by the American Society of Echocardiography.


PubMed | University of Witwatersrand, Royal Brompton Hospital, King Saud University, Santa Cabrini Hospital and 25 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography | Year: 2014

Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is a simplified, clinician-performed application of echocardiography that is rapidly expanding in use, especially in emergency and critical care medicine. Performed by appropriately trained clinicians, typically not cardiologists, FoCUS ascertains the essential information needed in critical scenarios for time-sensitive clinical decision making. A need exists for quality evidence-based review and clinical recommendations on its use.The World Interactive Network Focused on Critical UltraSound conducted an international, multispecialty, evidence-based, methodologically rigorous consensus process on FoCUS. Thirty-three experts from 16 countries were involved. A systematic multiple-database, double-track literature search (January 1980 to September 2013) was performed. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of available evidence and subsequent development of the recommendations. Evidence-based panel judgment and consensus was collected and analyzed by means of the RAND appropriateness method.During four conferences (in New Delhi, Milan, Boston, and Barcelona), 108 statements were elaborated and discussed. Face-to-face debates were held in two rounds using the modified Delphi technique. Disagreement occurred for 10 statements. Weak or conditional recommendations were made for two statements and strong or very strong recommendations for 96. These recommendations delineate the nature, applications, technique, potential benefits, clinical integration, education, and certification principles for FoCUS, both for adults and pediatric patients.This document presents the results of the first International Conference on FoCUS. For the first time, evidence-based clinical recommendations comprehensively address this branch of point-of-care ultrasound, providing a framework for FoCUS to standardize its application in different clinical settings around the world.


Moreau P.,University of Nantes | Hulin C.,University Hospital | Macro M.,University of Caen Lower Normandy | Caillot D.,University Hospital | And 29 more authors.
Blood | Year: 2016

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome conducted a randomized trial to compare bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) with bortezomib-cyclophosphamidedexamethasone (VCD) as induction before high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Overall, a total of 340 patients were centrally randomly assigned to receive VTD or VCD. After 4 cycles, on an intent-to-treat basis, 66.3% of the patients in the VTD arm achieved at least a very good partial response (primary end point) vs 56.2% in the VCD arm (P 5 .05). In addition, the overall response rate was significantly higher in the VTD arm (92.3% vs 83.4% in the VCD arm; P 5 .01). Hematologic toxicity was higher in the VCD arm, with significantly increased rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. On the other hand, the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN) was significantly higher in the VTD arm. With the exception of hematologic adverse events and PN, other grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rare, with no significant differences between the VTD and VCD arms. Our data support the preferential use of VTD rather than VCD in preparation for ASCT. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537 and at EudraCT as #2013-003174-27. © 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.


PubMed | University of Limoges, Institute University Du Cancer Of Toulouse Oncopole, Center Henri Becquerel, University of Nantes and 12 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Blood | Year: 2016

The Intergroupe Francophone du Mylome conducted a randomized trial to compare bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) as induction before high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Overall, a total of 340 patients were centrally randomly assigned to receive VTD or VCD. After 4 cycles, on an intent-to-treat basis, 66.3% of the patients in the VTD arm achieved at least a very good partial response (primary end point) vs 56.2% in the VCD arm (P = .05). In addition, the overall response rate was significantly higher in the VTD arm (92.3% vs 83.4% in the VCD arm; P = .01). Hematologic toxicity was higher in the VCD arm, with significantly increased rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. On the other hand, the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN) was significantly higher in the VTD arm. With the exception of hematologic adverse events and PN, other grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rare, with no significant differences between the VTD and VCD arms. Our data support the preferential use of VTD rather than VCD in preparation for ASCT. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537 and at EudraCT as #2013-003174-27.

Loading University Hospital Avicenne collaborators
Loading University Hospital Avicenne collaborators