Citations

This cohort study evaluates the association between measured lipoprotein(a) level and incident venous thromboembolism.

Abstract Background Chronic Q fever, caused by Coxiella burnetii, presents significant diagnostic and management challenges due to its variable presentation and high morbidity, especially among patients with underlying cardiac or vascular disease. In the United States, cases are rising, often without identifiable exposures, and diagnostic delays remain common. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of chronic Q fever cases at the Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2023. Patients with clinical evidence and a phase I IgG titer ≥1:1024 and/or positive PCR for C. burnetii were included. Data were abstracted from electronic health records, including demographics, exposures, clinical manifestations, diagnostics, treatments, and outcomes. Statistical analyses assessed factors influencing diagnostic delay and treatment response. Results We identified 33 patients with chronic Q fever (median age 56; 88% male). Median time to diagnosis was 99 days with 11.4 days between Infectious Diseases (ID) evaluation and diagnosis. Animal exposure was reported in 17 patients (52%), while eight (24%) had no identifiable exposure. Patients primarily presented with prosthetic valve endocarditis (n=14, 42%), or vascular graft infection (n=9, 27%). The majority were treated with doxycycline and hydroxychloroquine (n=25, 75%) and 14 patients (42%) required surgical intervention. Mortality attributable to chronic Q fever was 6% (n=2). Conclusions Chronic Q fever remains under-recognized, with substantial diagnostic delays prior to treatment. Cardiovascular infection predominates, and surgical intervention is often required despite prolonged antimicrobial therapy. Early specialist evaluation and standardized diagnostic pathways may improve outcomes.

Abstract The age-related decline in tissue regenerative capacity drives demand for interventions restoring physiological repair mechanisms. Glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine-copper (GHK-Cu) has demonstrated significant regenerative, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties in preclinical models, prompting its increasing integration into aesthetic practice despite a paucity of standardized clinical guidelines. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and regenerative mechanisms of GHK-Cu in aesthetic medicine to clarify its clinical utility and inform future research. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from database inception through March 2026, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included clinical and preclinical models investigating GHK-Cu as a standalone intervention for aesthetic applications. 20 studies (18 preclinical; 2 RCTs) were included. Preclinical data consistently demonstrated that GHK-Cu enhances extracellular matrix synthesis (type I collagen and glycosaminoglycans), modulates metalloproteinase activity, and promotes angiogenesis and cellular proliferation. It also exhibited significant anti-inflammatory effects by suppressing TGF-β and IL-6. Clinically, GHK-Cu improved patient-reported satisfaction after laser resurfacing and significantly reduced wrinkle volume and depth compared with controls. Additionally, advanced delivery systems, including microneedles and liposomes, markedly improved its transdermal bioavailability and efficacy. GHK-Cu demonstrates a reasonable biological basis for use as a regenerative agent in aesthetic medicine, supported by available preclinical data. Nevertheless, the findings reported across studies were constrained by methodological variability and a limited number of well-designed clinical trials. Future research incorporating larger, controlled trials with standardized formulations, dosing regimens, and delivery methods will be necessary to close the translational gap and inform the development of consistent therapeutic protocols in clinical practice.

Background:The development of symptoms or left ventricular dysfunction in severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. While elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supported by robust randomized evidence, data on TAVR performed in non-elective settings (urgent, emergent, or salvage) remain limited and heterogeneous. In these settings, outcomes may be influenced more by baseline clinical severity than by procedural factors. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-elective TAVR and to compare the associated outcomes with those of elective TAVR.Methods:This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published after 2002 evaluating urgent, emergent, or salvage TAVR in adult patients with severe AS. Eligible studies were required to include elective TAVR as a comparator. Outcomes included mortality and major procedural complications. Prespecified era-based analyses and sensitivity analyses excluding studies at critical risk of bias were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.Results:A total of 17 observational studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included, comprising 215,141 patients. Compared with elective patients, those undergoing non-elective TAVR had more advanced heart failure, higher NYHA class, greater comorbidity burden, and higher surgical risk scores, whereas baseline echocardiographic severity of AS was similar. Pooled outcomes for non-elective TAVR showed in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates of 5.1%, 12.4%, and 26.7%, respectively. Non-elective TAVR was associated with higher mortality at all time points compared with elective procedures; meanwhile, rates of stroke, vascular complications, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar, while major bleeding and acute kidney injury were more frequent. Era-based analyses showed a stable relative mortality risk over time.Conclusions:Although non-elective TAVR is associated with worse outcomes than elective procedures, these differences appear to be largely driven by baseline clinical severity rather than by the transcatheter intervention. In unstable patients with severe AS, non-elective TAVR remains the most effective definitive treatment option compared with balloon aortic valvuloplasty or conservative management.The PROSPERO Registration:CRD420251239620, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251239620.

Introduction The introduction of the purpose‐built single‐port (SP) robotic platform has allowed for the advent of regionalized minimally invasive surgical approaches for robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP), including the extraperitoneal and transvesical techniques. This study sought to develop a best practice consensus on the key principles, patient selection, surgical techniques, expected clinical outcomes, and learning curves pertaining to SP‐RARP. Methods A modified Delphi consensus was developed by a panel of experts, consisting of a 33‐item questionnaire, with each statement rated using a binary Likert scale (‘agree’ or ‘disagree’). The survey was distributed via email to all practicing SP‐RARP surgeons across the USA and Europe. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on a given statement. Results A total of 53 surgeons participated in the Delphi Consensus across the two rounds. Of 33 statements, 28 (84.8%) reached agreement in the first round. The remaining consensus was achieved in the second round, involving 35 surgeons, and with one additional statement. The panel agreed that, although are no absolute contraindications to SP‐RARP, the preference towards specific SP‐RARP techniques should remain guided by the individual patients and surgical expertise. Although the SP extraperitoneal technique is recommended to pursue pelvic lymph node dissections, the panel agreed that transvesical SP‐RARP showed promise in promoting shorter hospital stay, faster recovery of urinary continence, and utility in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. Consensus was also reached on the need for a structured training pathway, with most recommending beginning with extraperitoneal SP‐RARP before advancing to the transvesical approach. Conclusion This Delphi consensus demonstrates broad agreement among experienced SP surgeons in the USA and Europe, forming the foundation for future research on the clinical utility and necessary training pathways for SP‐RARP. Nevertheless, empirical validation based on clinical data from large cohort studies remains important.

Prehabilitation with Impella 5.5 offers hemodynamic support while allowing early mobilization, yet its overall effect on post-transplant recovery remains unclear. The aim was to assess recovery during Impella 5.5–supported prehabilitation and determine its association with early post-heart transplant outcomes, including a potential dose–response relationship with ambulatory activity. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults bridged to transplant with Impella 5.5 between April 1, 2022 and September 30, 2024. Daily walking distance, recorded by nursing staff, served as the intervention. Primary outcome was postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS); the secondary outcome was time to extubation. Fine–Gray competing-risk models, adjusted for age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and days of Impella support, assessed associations. Longitudinal recovery trajectories were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models incorporating restricted cubic splines. Among 82 eligible patients, 65 met the inclusion criteria. Patients who walked farther during Impella 5.5 support in the intensive care unit (ICU) had shorter hospital stays and were taken off the ventilator sooner after transplantation. The overall recovery peaked during the first 2–3 weeks of support, with smaller recovery thereafter, indicating that most functional recovery occurred early during prehabilitation.