Editor's Choice - PRINciples of optimal antithrombotiC therapy and coagulation managEment during elective fenestrated and branched EndovaScular aortic repairS (PRINCE2SS): An International Expert Based Delphi Consensus Study.

OBJECTIVE: Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres. METHODS: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers' consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k. RESULTS: Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage. CONCLUSION: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.

Identifying unanswered questions and setting the agenda for future systematic research in Multiple Sclerosis. A worldwide, multi-stakeholder Priority Setting project.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting the research priorities of people affected by a condition, carers and health care professionals can increase research value and reduce research waste. The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Disease of CNS Group, in collaboration with the Cochrane Neurological Sciences Field, launched a priority setting exercise with the aim of prioritizing pressing questions to ensure that future systematic reviews are as useful as possible to the people who need them, in all countries, regardless of their economic status. METHOD: Sixteen high priority questions on different aspects of MS were developed by members of a multi-stakeholder priority setting Steering Group (SG). In an anonymous online survey translated into 12 languages researchers, clinicians, people with MS (PwMS) and carers were asked to identify and rank, 5 out of 16 questions as high priority and to provide an explanation for their choice. An additional free-text priority research topic suggestion was allowed. RESULTS: The survey was accessible through MS advocacy associations' social media and Cochrane web pages from October 20, 2020 to February 6, 2021. 1.190 responses (86.73% of all web contacts) were evaluable and included in the analysis. Responses came from 55 countries worldwide, 7 of which provided >75% of respondents and 95% of which were high and upper-middle income countries. 58.8% of respondents live in the EU, 23% in the Americas, 8.9% in the Western Pacific, 2.8% in the Eastern Mediterranean and 0.3% in South Eastern Asia. About 75% of the respondents were PwMS. The five research questions to be answered with the highest priority were: Question (Q)1 "Does MRI help predict disability worsening of PwMS?" (19.9%), Q5 "What are the benefits and harms of treating PwMS with one disease-modifying drug compared to another?" (19.3%), Q3 "Does multidisciplinary care by teams of different social and health professionals improve health outcomes and experiences for PwMS?" (11.9%), Q16 "Does psychological health affect disease progression in PwMS?" (9.2%) and Q10 "What are the benefits and harms of exercise for PwMS?" (7.2%). The multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated a significant influence of geographic area and income level on the ranking of Q1 and a marginal for Q16 as top a priority after accounting for the effect of all other predictors. Approximately 50% of the respondents indicated that they had an important additional suggestion to be considered. CONCLUSION: This international collaborative initiative in the field of MS offers a worldwide perspective on the research questions perceived as pivotal by a geographically representative sample of multiple stakeholders in the field of MS. The results of the survey could guide the prioritization of research on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions which could be meaningful and useful for PwMS and carers, avoiding the duplication of efforts and research waste. High quality systematic reviews elicited by priority setting exercises may offer the best available evidence and inform decisions by healthcare providers and policy-makers which can be adapted to the different realities around the world.

Is there inter-observer variation in the interpretation of SSEPs in comatose cardiac arrest survivors? Further considerations following the Italian multicenter ProNeCa study.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral absence of N20 peak in median nerve Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) is considered the most valid predictor of poor outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We investigated the consistency in interpreting SSEP recordings in a multicentre study. METHODS: 44 SSEP recordings randomly extracted from 600 recordings of 392 patients included in the "Prognostication of Neurological outcome after Cardiac Arrest (ProNeCa) study" were blindly read by three expert neurophysiologists. Agreement between raters, and individual agreement of each rater vs. reference standard (RS), were calculated using Kappa Coefficients. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: When raters had to evaluate the presence of N20 with normal amplitude, the inter-rater agreement was very high (Kappa = 0.84). In the case of N20 absence the agreement was good (Kappa = 0.66), but when N20 amplitude was low, the agreement decreased to moderate (Kappa = 0.579) becoming even weaker when it was "Non Assessable" (Kappa = 0.107). The agreement of each rater with the RS had a range from moderate to very good; rater1 Kappa = 0.589 (95%CI 0.397-0.781; p < 0.001), rater2 Kappa = 0.644 (95%CI 0.460-0.828; p < 0.001), rater3 Kappa = 0.859 (95%CI 0.698-1.000; p < 0.001). The ICC was barely good, 0.682 (95%CI 0.539-0.798; p = 0.0075). CONCLUSION: Different health professionals, using different equipment in a multicentre study, had very good inter-rater agreement in interpreting SSEP records. The interpretation of "Non Assessable" SEPPs, mainly in relation to noise level, is still a crucial issue because it increases rater uncertainty. For this reason, it is important to focus on improving recording quality and interpretation of records.

Computerized general practice databases provide quick and cost-effective information on the prevalence of angina pectoris.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of angina pectoris (AP) using self-reported information and primary care databases. METHODS: A comparison between the prevalence of AP in 730,586 subjects from the Health Search Database (HSD) and 119,799 individuals from a Health Interview Survey (HIS) was performed. The age-specific prevalence was calculated by dividing the detected cases by the total number of individuals in each age group. The age-standardized prevalence was estimated by direct standardization performed using the Italian standard population. RESULTS: The HSD reported a higher crude prevalence of AP than the HIS, both in males (1374/100,000 vs 1006/100,000) and females (1449/100,000 vs 1007/100,000). In the HSD the age-specific prevalence was lower for patients aged <65 years, whilst higher estimates were reported for older patients. Age standardization slightly reduced the prevalence in both samples, although the HSD always reported higher estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription data from general practice databases may be a valid, simple, and cost-effective method to evaluate and serially monitor the prevalence of AP.

Secondary prevention of stroke in Italy: a cross-sectional survey in family practice.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension control and antiplatelet or oral anticoagulant drugs are the basis for secondary prevention of cerebrovascular events. Family physicians (FPs) are usually involved in both aspects of prevention, but no research has been carried out in Italy to evaluate the behavior of FPs in this field of prevention. METHODS: Data concerning 318 Italian FPs and 465,061 patients were extracted from the Health Search Database. Patients with coded diagnoses of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) were selected. Demographic records and information regarding presence of concurrent disease and medical records were also obtained. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to assess whether conditions exist that make appropriate control of blood pressure (BP) and prescription of antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs more likely. RESULTS: We selected 2555 patients with diagnosis of stroke and 2755 with TIA. Among all of the subjects, 32.6% had no BP recorded. Among the remaining subjects, 58.7% reported uncontrolled BP. Isolated systolic hypertension has been shown in 68.8% of patients with uncontrolled BP. Antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs were prescribed in 72% of these cases. Factors that made the prescription significantly more unlikely were diagnosis of TIA (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.54), total invalidity (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78), and time from event of 5 years or more (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Italian FPs could improve secondary prevention of cerebrovascular accidents. The primary target of intervention should be the control of systolic BP, and the group of patients with unacceptably high BP should be given priority. All of these patients should have been prescribed antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant agents, except in cases of extremely short life expectancy or substantial contraindications.