Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Vienna, Austria

Ehrlich M.P.,University of Vienna | Heijmen R.,St. Antonius Hospital | Piquet P.,Hopital Sainte Marguerite | Beregi J.-P.,Hopital Cardiologique CHRU | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery | Year: 2013

Objective: To assess the efficacy and midterm results of endovascular treatment of acute complicated type B dissection. Methods: From January 1998 to March 2004, 29 patients (7 women and 22 men) with acute complicated aortic type B dissection (mean age, 61 years; range, 22-78), defined as aortic rupture, malperfusion, intractable pain, or uncontrolled hypertension, underwent endovascular stent graft placement with the Medtronic Talent device. Five patients (17%) had undergone previous surgery on the ascending aorta and/or aortic valve. The mean aortic diameter at intervention was 48 ± 13 mm. Follow-up was 100% complete and averaged 53 ± 41 months. Results: The technical feasibility and success with deployment proximal to the entry tear was 100%, requiring partial or total coverage of the left subclavian artery in only 1 patient (3%). Hospital mortality was 17% ± 7% (70% confidence limit) with 6 late deaths. The causes of hospital death included multiorgan failure in 2 patients, aortic rupture in 2, and retrograde dissection in 1 patient. Three patients (10%) who survived the procedure developed neurologic complications (2 strokes and 1 transient ischemic attack). One patient required early conversion to surgery because of retrograde type A dissection. Furthermore, 4 patients developed a type Ia endoleak. A postprocedural increase in the distal aortic diameter was observed in 3 patients. The actuarial survival at 1 and 5 years was 79% and 61%, respectively. Freedom from treatment failure at 1 and 5 years (including reintervention, aortic rupture, device-related complications, aortic-related death, or sudden, unexplained late death) was 82% and 77%, respectively. Conclusions: Endovascular stent graft placement in acute complicated type B aortic dissection proves to be a promising alternative therapeutic treatment modality in this relatively difficult patient cohort. Refinements, especially in stent design and application, could further improve the prognosis of patients in this life-threatening situation. Copyright © 2013 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Source


Biggar P.,Nephrologie | Kovarik J.,Wilhelminenspital | Klauser-Braun R.,Donauspital | Graf H.,Rudolfstiftung | And 4 more authors.
Nephron - Clinical Practice | Year: 2014

Background: Safety and efficacy of paricalcitol in hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) was investigated under routine clinical practice in German and Austrian dialysis centers. Methods: Hemodialysis patients with sHPT initiating intravenous paricalcitol were enrolled in this noninterventional study regardless of concomitant sHPT treatment. Prior active vitamin D therapy was discontinued. Clinical laboratory values, including intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH), total serum calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), Ca × P product, and alkaline phosphatase (AP), were recorded for 6 months following initiation of paricalcitol treatment. Results: 1,313 patients (Austria, n = 280; Germany, n = 1,033) from 169 dialysis centers were enrolled. Most patients (n = 932; 79.1%) had received dialysis for ≥1 year. Median iPTH fell from 518.9 pg/ml [55.0 pmol/l] at baseline to 264.0 pg/ml [28.0 pmol/l] after 6 months (p < 0.0001). After 6 months of treatment, ≥30 and ≥60% reductions in iPTH were observed in 63.0 and 35.9% of patients, respectively. At 6 months, 27.2% of patients achieved iPTH levels between 150 and <300 pg/ml [15.9 and <31.8 pmol/l] compared with 9.7% at baseline. Ca, P, and Ca × P levels remained stable in the majority of patients. AP levels declined from a median of 98 U/l at baseline to 83 U/l (p < 0.0001) at 6 months. Monitoring of adverse events and clinical laboratory assessments identified no unexpected safety signals for paricalcitol. Conclusions: Paricalcitol is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for the control of iPTH levels in hemodialysis patients with sHPT. The results of this study support the results of previous trials under real-time clinical practice conditions in Austria and Germany. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel. Source


Albers P.,Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf | Albrecht W.,Rudolfstiftung | Algaba F.,Fundacio Puigvert | Bokemeyer C.,Universitatskliniken Eppendorf | And 4 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2011

Context: On behalf of the European Association of Urology (EAU), guidelines for the diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of testicular cancer were established. Objective: This article is a short version of the EAU testicular cancer guidelines and summarises the main conclusions from the guidelines on the management of testicular cancer. Evidence acquisition: Guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary guidelines working group. A systematic review was carried out using Medline and Embase, also taking Cochrane evidence and data from the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group into consideration. A panel of experts weighted the references, and a level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned. Results: There is a paucity of literature especially regarding longer term follow-up, and results from a number of ongoing trials are awaited. The choice of treatment centre is of the utmost importance, and treatment in reference centres within clinical trials, especially for poor-prognosis nonseminomatous germ cell tumours, provides better outcomes. For patients with clinical stage I seminoma, based on recently published data on long-term toxicity, adjuvant radiotherapy is no longer recommended as first-line adjuvant treatment. The TNM classification 2009 is recommended. Conclusions: These guidelines contain information for the standardised management of patients with testicular cancer based on the latest scientific insights. Cure rates are generally excellent, but because testicular cancer mainly affects men in their third or fourth decade of life, treatment effects on fertility require careful counselling of patients, and treatment must be tailored taking individual circumstances and patient preferences into account. © 2011 European Association of Urology. Source


Avogaro A.,University of Padua | Schernthaner G.,Rudolfstiftung
Acta Diabetologica | Year: 2013

Defining optimal regimens for the management of diabetes among patients with renal impairment is often clinically challenging, and guidance on the optimal management of these patients in clinical practice can vary considerably. Moreover, as many anti-diabetes agents are predominantly excreted renally, treatment options to control blood glucose levels are limited for patients with type 2 diabetes and concomitant chronic kidney disease. Many of the widely used and more established anti-diabetes drugs cannot be used in this population either or must be down-titrated to reduce the increased risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes. A number of more recently available anti-diabetes drugs are indicated for use in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Newer drugs that may improve the currently very limited treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment include the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. This review paper, based on a literature search for both original and review articles (Medline), relevant clinical practice/regulatory guidelines and integrating our own knowledge of the field, provides an up-to-date examination of the current treatment options available. However, further studies with larger populations of patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease are needed to clarify the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options, including newer drugs. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia. Source


Albers P.,Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf | Albrecht W.,Rudolfstiftung | Algaba F.,Fundacio Puigvert | Bokemeyer C.,Universitatskliniken Eppendorf | And 4 more authors.
Actas Urologicas Espanolas | Year: 2012

Context: On behalf of the European Association of Urology (EAU), guidelines for the diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of testicular cancer were established. Objective: This article is a short version of the EAU testicular cancer guidelines and summarises the main conclusions from the guidelines on the management of testicular cancer. Evidence acquisition: Guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary guidelines working group. A systematic review was carried out using Medline and Embase, also taking Cochrane evidence and data from the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group into consideration. A panel of experts weighted the references, and a level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned. Results: There is a paucity of literature especially regarding longer term follow-up, and results from a number of ongoing trials are awaited. The choice of treatment centre is of the utmost importance, and treatment in reference centres within clinical trials, especially for poor-prognosis nonseminomatous germ cell tumours, provides better outcomes. For patients with clinical stage I seminoma, based on recently published data on long-term toxicity, adjuvant radiotherapy is no longer recommended as first-line adjuvant treatment. The TNM classification 2009 is recommended. Conclusions: These guidelines contain information for the standardised management of patients with testicular cancer based on the latest scientific insights. Cure rates are generally excellent, but because testicular cancer mainly affects men in their third or fourth decade of life, treatment effects on fertility require careful counselling of patients, and treatment must be tailored taking individual circumstances and patient preferences into account. Take Home Message: Although testicular cancer has excellent cure rates, the choice of treatment centre is of the utmost importance. Expert centres achieve better results for both early stage testicular cancer (lower relapse rates) and overall survival (higher stages within clinical trials). For patients with clinical stage I seminoma, adjuvant radiotherapy is no longer recommended as first-line adjuvant treatment. © 2011 AEU. Published by Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations