In this prospective randomized trial, endoscopic harvesting of the saphenous vein significantly reduced postoperative leg wound complications, including infection, and improved patient satisfaction as compared with the conventional harvesting technique. There were no significant histologic differences between the conventional and endoscopically harvested saphenous veins.

No abstract

Our objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy between the HAS-BLED score and any of HEMORR2 HAGES, ATRIA, CHADS2 , or CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase databases for relevant studies. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. Eleven studies were identified. Discrimination analysis demonstrates that HAS-BLED has no significant C-statistic differences for bleeding risk prediction compared with ATRIA or HEMORR2 HAGES, but it has significant differences compared with CHADS2 or CHA2 DS2 -VASc. The significant positive net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement values also show that HAS-BLED is superior to that of any of HEMORR2 HAGES, ATRIA, CHADS2 , or CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores. According to calibration analysis of HAS-BLED, it overpredicts the risk of bleeding in the low (risk ratio [RR]: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-2.13, P = 0.64) risk stratification but underpredicts that in the moderate (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.86, P = 0.002) and high (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.70-1.10, P = 0.27) risk stratifications. The HAS-BLED score not only performs better than the HEMORR2 HAGES and ATRIA bleeding scores, but it also is superior to the CHADS2 and CHA2 DS2 -VASc stroke scores for bleeding prediction. The HAS-BLED score should be the optimal choice to assess major bleeding risk in clinical practice.

Background During previous pandemic outbreaks, medical staff have reported high levels of psychological distress. The aim of the current study was to report a snapshot of the psychological impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its correlated factors on medical staff in Guangdong, China. Methods On the 2nd and 3rd February 2020, soon after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed medical staff at four hospitals in Guangdong, China, to collect demographic characteristics, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) scores. Results Complete responses were received from 1045 medical staff. Respondents were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to their working environment of contacting with potential or confirmed COVID-19 cases. The proportion of staff with anxiety (55.4% v. 43.0%, p < 0.001) or depression (43.6% v. 36.8%, p = 0.028) was significantly higher in the high-risk group than the low-risk group. The percentage of staff with severe anxiety was similar in the two groups. Doctors were more susceptible to moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms. The high-risk group had higher levels of clinical insomnia (13.5% v. 8.5%, p = 0.011) and were more likely to be in the upper quartile for stress symptoms (24.7% v. 19.3%, p = 0.037) than the low-risk group. Additionally, work experience negatively correlated with insomnia symptoms. Conclusions It is important for hospitals and authorities to protect both the physical and psychological health of medical staff during times of pandemic, even those with a low exposure risk.

No abstract

The aortic media depends on an intrinsic NAD fueling system to protect against DNA damage and premature SMC senescence, with relevance to human thoracic aortopathy.

SOC is the mediating variable between perceived stress and depression, and can reduce the influence of perceived stress on depression.

No abstract