Displaying publications 21 - 23 of 23 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
  2. Devereaux PJ, Lamy A, Chan MTV, Allard RV, Lomivorotov VV, Landoni G, et al.
    N Engl J Med, 2022 Mar 03;386(9):827-836.
    PMID: 35235725 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000803
    BACKGROUND: Consensus recommendations regarding the threshold levels of cardiac troponin elevations for the definition of perioperative myocardial infarction and clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery range widely (from >10 times to ≥70 times the upper reference limit for the assay). Limited evidence is available to support these recommendations.

    METHODS: We undertook an international prospective cohort study involving patients 18 years of age or older who underwent cardiac surgery. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I measurements (upper reference limit, 26 ng per liter) were obtained 3 to 12 hours after surgery and on days 1, 2, and 3 after surgery. We performed Cox analyses using a regression spline that explored the relationship between peak troponin measurements and 30-day mortality, adjusting for scores on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (which estimates the risk of death after cardiac surgery on the basis of 18 variables, including age and sex).

    RESULTS: Of 13,862 patients included in the study, 296 (2.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Among patients who underwent isolated coronary-artery bypass grafting or aortic-valve replacement or repair, the threshold troponin level, measured within 1 day after surgery, that was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of more than 1.00 for death within 30 days was 5670 ng per liter (95% confidence interval [CI], 1045 to 8260), a level 218 times the upper reference limit. Among patients who underwent other cardiac surgery, the corresponding threshold troponin level was 12,981 ng per liter (95% CI, 2673 to 16,591), a level 499 times the upper reference limit.

    CONCLUSIONS: The levels of high-sensitivity troponin I after cardiac surgery that were associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days were substantially higher than levels currently recommended to define clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VISION Cardiac Surgery ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01842568.).

  3. Thomas S, Borges F, Bhandari M, De Beer J, Urrútia Cuchí G, Adili A, et al.
    J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2020 May 20;102(10):880-888.
    PMID: 32118652 DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01305
    BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is common and of prognostic importance. Little is known about MINS in orthopaedic surgery. The diagnostic criterion for MINS was a level of ≥0.03 ng/mL on a non-high-sensitivity troponin T (TnT) assay due to myocardial ischemia.

    METHODS: We undertook an international, prospective study of 15,103 patients ≥45 years of age who had inpatient noncardiac surgery; 3,092 underwent orthopaedic surgery. Non-high-sensitivity TnT assays were performed on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, and 3. Among orthopaedic patients, we determined (1) the prognostic relevance of the MINS diagnostic criteria, (2) the 30-day mortality rate for those with and without MINS, and (3) the probable proportion of MINS cases that would go undetected without troponin monitoring because of a lack of an ischemic symptom.

    RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-seven orthopaedic patients (11.9%) had MINS. MINS was associated independently with 30-day mortality including among those who had had orthopaedic surgery. Orthopaedic patients without and with MINS had a 30-day mortality rate of 1.0% and 9.8%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 11.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.72 to 18.92). The 30-day mortality rate was increased for patients with MINS who had an ischemic feature (i.e., symptoms, or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography or imaging) (OR, 18.25; 95% CI, 10.06 to 33.10) and for those who did not have an ischemic feature (OR, 7.35; 95% CI, 3.37 to 16.01). The proportion of orthopaedic patients with MINS who were asymptomatic and in whom the myocardial injury would have probably gone undetected without TnT monitoring was 81.3% (95% CI, 76.3% to 85.4%).

    CONCLUSIONS: One in 8 orthopaedic patients in our study had MINS, and MINS was associated with a higher mortality rate regardless of symptoms. Troponin levels should be measured after surgery in at-risk patients because most MINS cases (>80%) are asymptomatic and would go undetected without routine measurements.

    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links