OBJECTIVE: We studied the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in Asian patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs.
PATIENTS/METHODS: We performed a prospective epidemiological study in 19 centers across Asia (China, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand) in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR) or hip fracture surgery (HFS) without pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The primary endpoint was the rate of DVT of the lower limbs documented objectively with bilateral ascending venography performed 6-10 days after surgery using a standardized technique and evaluated by a central adjudication committee unaware of local interpretation.
RESULTS: Overall, of 837 Asian patients screened for this survey, 407 (48.6%, aged 20-99 years) undergoing THR (n = 175), TKR (n = 136) or HFS (n = 96) were recruited in 19 centers. DVT was diagnosed in 121 of 295 evaluable patients [41.0%, (95% confidence interval (CI): 35.4-46.7)]. Proximal DVT was found in 30 patients [10.2% (7.0-14.2)]. Total DVT and proximal DVT rates were highest in TKR patients (58.1% and 17.1%, respectively), followed by HFS patients (42.0% and 7.2%, respectively), then THR patients (25.6% and 5.8%, respectively). DVT was more frequent in female patients aged at least 65 years. Pulmonary embolism was clinically suspected in 10 of 407 patients (2.5%) and objectively confirmed in two (0.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of venographic thrombosis in the absence of thromboprophylaxis after major joint surgery in Asian patients is similar to that previously reported in patients in Western countries.
METHODS: Clinicopathological data were retrieved from the archived formal pathology reports for surgical specimens diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma, NOS. Microvessels were immunohistochemically stained with anti-CD34 antibody and quantified as microvessel density.
RESULTS: At least 50% of 94 cases of invasive breast ductal carcinoma in the study were advanced stage. The majority had poor prognosis factors such as tumor size larger than 50mm (48.9%), positive lymph node metastasis (60.6%), and tumor grade III (52.1%). Higher percentages of estrogen and progesterone receptor negative cases were recorded (46.8% and 46.8% respectively). Her-2 overexpression cases and triple negative breast cancers constituted 24.5% and 22.3% respectively. Significantly higher microvessel density was observed in the younger patient age group (p=0.012). There were no significant associations between microvessel density and other clinicopathological factors (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the breast cancer patients of this institution had advanced stage disease with poorer prognostic factors as compared to other local and western studies. Breast cancer in younger patients might be more proangiogenic.
METHODS: C. nutans leaves was extracted with 50-100% ethanol or deionised water at 1% (w/v). Human umbilical veins endothelial cell (HUVEC) proliferation was examined using MTT assay. The in vitro anti-angiogenic effects of C. nutans were assessed using wound scratch, tube formation and transwell migration assays. The VEGF levels secreted by human oral squamous cell carcinoma (HSC-4) cell and HUVEC permeability were also measured. Besides, the rat aortic ring and chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assays, representing ex vivo and in vivo models, respectively, were performed.
RESULTS: The MTT assay revealed that water extract of C. nutans leaves exhibited the highest activity, compared to the ethanol extracts. Therefore, the water extract was chosen for subsequent experiments. C. nutans leaf extract significantly suppressed endothelial cell proliferation and migration in both absence and presence of VEGF. However, the water extract failed to suppress HUVEC transmigration, differentiation and permeability. C. nutans water extract also did not suppress HSC-4 cell-induced VEGF production. Importantly, C. nutans water extract significantly abolished the sprouting of vessels in aortic rings as well as in chick embryo CAM.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, these findings reveal potential anti-angiogenic effects of C. nutans, providing new evidence for its potential application as an anti-angiogenic agent.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.