Diabetic foot (DF) is a chronic and highly disabling complication of diabetes. The prevalence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is high in diabetic patients and, associated or not with peripheral neuropathy (PN), can be found in 50% of cases of DF. It is worth pointing out that the number of major amputations in diabetic patients is still very high. Many PAD diabetic patients are not revascularised due to lack of technical expertise or, even worse, negative beliefs because of poor experience. This despite the progress obtained in the techniques of distal revascularisation that nowadays allow to reopen distal arteries of the leg and foot. Italy has one of the lowest prevalence rates of major amputations in Europe, and has a long tradition in the field of limb salvage by means of an aggressive approach in debridement, antibiotic therapy and distal revascularisation. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to produce a consensus document concerning the treatment of PAD and limb salvage in diabetic patients, based on the Italian experience in this field, to share with the scientific community.

No abstract

Anticoagulation, reducing the risk of thromboembolic events in patients undergoing cardioversion, is a cornerstone of peri-cardioversion management in patients with atrial fibrillation. We aimed to analyse published data on the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients undergoing cardioversion.We performed a systematic review of randomized prospective clinical trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with warfarin and reporting data on post-cardioversion outcomes of interest. Outcomes of interest were stroke, systemic thromboembolic events and major bleeding. We reviewed a total of six RCTs including 3900 cardioversions performed using a DOAC for thromboembolic prophylaxis. These studies reported a low incidence overall of adverse outcomes associated with the use of DOACs (around 1% in all studies, except the ROCKET posthoc study which included ablation procedures). The incidence rate of adverse events during DOAC treatment was found to be very similar to that observed with warfarin anticoagulation.In RCTs DOAC treatment in patients undergoing cardioversion appears to be effective and safe. However, because evidence in this clinical setting is still weak, observational reports could be useful in providing further data about peri-procedural outcomes.

Background Recently, the COMPASS trial demonstrated that dual therapy reduced cardiovascular outcomes compared with aspirin alone in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. Methods and Results We sought to assess the proportion of patients eligible for the COMPASS trial and to compare the epidemiology and outcome of these patients with those without COMPASS inclusion or with any exclusion criteria in a contemporary, nationwide cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Among the 4068 patients with detailed information allowing evaluation of eligibility, 1416 (34.8%) did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (COMPASS-Not-Included), 841 (20.7%) had exclusion criteria (COMPASS-Excluded) and the remaining 1811 (44.5%) were classified as COMPASS-Like. At 1 year, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke, was 0.9% in the COMPASS-Not-Included and 2.0% in the COMPASS-Like (p = 0.01), and 5.0% in the COMPASS-Excluded group (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Among the COMPASS-Like population, patients with multiple COMPASS enrichment criteria presented a significant increase in the risk of MACE (from 1.0% to 3.3% in those with 1 and ≥3 criteria, respectively; p = 0.012), and a modest absolute increase in major bleeding risk (from 0.2% to 0.4%, respectively; p = 0.46). Conclusions In a contemporary real-world cohort registry of stable CAD, most patients resulted as eligible for the COMPASS. These patients presented a considerable annual risk of MACE that consistently increases in the presence of multiple risk factors.

In a real-life registry of all-comers NSTEACS patients, ECS was non-inferior to EIS; however, when EIS was applied according to clinical judgement, a reduction of clinical events at one year was demonstrated.