Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Registry (6) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (6)
Zielsetzung: Die Daten für das Jahr 2019 des Registers „Abdominelles Aortenaneurysma“ (AAA) des Deutschen Instituts für Gefäßmedizinische Gesundheitsforschung (DIGG) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin werden vorgestellt.
Methodik: Im Jahr 2019 beteiligten sich an dem Register insgesamt 109 Kliniken. Für die offene Versorgung (OR) des intakten AAA (iAAA) gaben 78 (71,6 %) Kliniken, für die endovaskuläre Versorgung (EVAR) des iAAA 102 (93,6 %) Kliniken Daten ein. Für das rupturierte AAA (rAAA) wurden von 36 Kliniken (33,0 %) (EVAR) bzw. 50 (45,9 %) Kliniken (OR) Patienten gemeldet. Ausgewertet wurden die Daten von 1967 stationär behandelten Patienten. Von den insgesamt 1793 iAAA waren 1501 infrarenal (83,7 %) und 292 (16,3 %) juxtarenal gelegen.
Ergebnisse: 1429 iAAA (79,7 %) wurden endovaskulär und 364 (20,3 %) offen versorgt. Bei den endovaskulär versorgten Patienten mit iAAA verlief der Eingriff in 86,3 % der Fälle komplikationslos. Es verstarben insgesamt 15 Patienten (1,0 %) bis zur Entlassung. Bei den offen versorgten Patienten wiesen 67,0 % der Patienten keine Komplikationen auf. Verstorben sind insgesamt 20 Patienten (5,5 %). Bei EVAR war die Klinikletalität bei Versorgung juxtarenaler AAA mit 3,7 % signifikant höher als bei Versorgung infrarenaler AAA mit 0,6 % (p = 0,002), bei OR konnten hingegen keine signifikanten Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Klinikletalität aufgezeigt werden (juxtarenal 4,8 %, infrarenal 5,8 %; p = 0,470). Von den 174 Patienten mit rAAA wurden 80 (46,0 %) endovaskulär und 94 (54,0 %) offen versorgt. Bei EVAR sind 20,0 % der Patienten während des stationären Aufenthalts verstorben, bei OR 36,2 %.
Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse des Jahres 2019 zu Klinikletalität und Morbidität bei endovaskulärer und offener Versorgung des iAAA bestätigen weitgehend die publizierten Ergebnisse für die Jahre 2013 bis 2018. Beim rAAA sind die Ergebnisse der einzelnen Jahresberichte hingegen widersprüchlich, die kleinen berichteten jährlichen Fallzahlen erlauben nur Aussagen über größere Zeiträume.
Zielsetzung: Die Daten für das Jahr 2018 des Registers „Abdominelles Aortenaneurysma“ (AAA) des Deutschen Instituts für Gefäßmedizinische Gesundheitsforschung (DIGG) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin werden vorgestellt.
Methodik: Im Jahr 2018 beteiligten sich an dem Register insgesamt 135 Kliniken. Für die offene Versorgung (OR) des intakten AAA (iAAA) gaben 118 (87,4 %) Kliniken, für die endovaskuläre Versorgung (EVAR) des iAAA 133 (98,5 %) Kliniken Daten ein. Für das rupturierte AAA (rAAA) wurden von 80 Kliniken (59,3 %) (EVAR) bzw. 65 (48,1 %) Kliniken (OR) Patienten gemeldet. Ausgewertet wurden die Daten von 4051 stationär behandelten Patienten.
Ergebnisse: 2800 iAAA (75,8 %) wurden endovaskulär und 895 (24,2 %) offen versorgt. Bei den endovaskulär versorgten Patienten mit iAAA verlief der Eingriff in 86,4 % der Fälle komplikationslos. Es verstarben insgesamt 32 Patienten (1,1 %) bis zur Entlassung. Bei den offen versorgten Patienten wiesen 73,4 % der Patienten keine Komplikationen auf. Verstorben sind insgesamt 42 Patienten (4,7 %). Von den 356 Patienten mit rAAA wurden 192 (53,9 %) endovaskulär und 164 (46,1 %) offen versorgt. Nur 11,0 % der mit OR versorgten Patienten, aber 23,4 % bei EVAR wiesen freies Blut in der Bauchhöhle auf. Bei EVAR sind 30,7 % der Patienten während des stationären Aufenthalts verstorben, bei OR 20,1 %.
Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse des Jahres 2018 zu Klinikletalität und Morbidität bei endovaskulärer und offener Versorgung des iAAA bestätigen weitestgehend die publizierten Ergebnisse für die Jahre 2013 bis 2017. Beim rAAA wurde 2018 erstmals über mehr endovaskuläre als offene Versorgungen berichtet – mit Ergebnissen, die denen der Vorjahre diametral entgegengesetzt waren. Patienten mit EVAR wiesen die höhere Komorbidität als Patienten mit OR auf und die Klinikletalität war höher. Es bleiben die Ergebnisse der Folgejahre abzuwarten, um diesen Trend genauer bewerten zu können.
Purpose: The treatment with a cochlear implant (CI) is the gold standard in therapy of patients with profound hearing loss or deafness. Successful hearing rehabilitation with a CI is a complex, multi-stage process. In medicine, “Clinical Practice Guidelines” (CPG) are widely accepted for the standardization of such processes. These are supplemented by medical registries in which data regarding the treatment can be collected and evaluated. The aim of this paper is to identify currently existing CI-related CPGs and registries in Europe.
Methods: Between 01/2021 and 06/2021, 42 countries on the European continent, including the United Kingdom, Russia and Turkey, were screened using an internet search (search engine: Google) and a key word search in the Pubmed database. Search terms were the respective country name combined with the following terms: “Cochlear Implant”, “CI”, “Cochlear implant clinical practice guideline”, “CI Guideline”, “Cochlear Implant Registry”, “CI Registry”, “Ear nose throat society”. The internet search was conducted in English as well as in the corresponding national language. The objective was to identify a CI-related CPG or registry.
Results: A CPG was found in 16 of 42 (38%) countries. In terms of population, this accounts for 645 million out of 838 million people (77%). A registry existed in 4 of the 42 (10%) countries assessed. This corresponds to 102 million out of 838 million (12%) people. In total, 4 out of 42 countries (10%) had both a CPG and a registry.
Conclusion: Our work shows numerous efforts in Europe to standardize CI care at the national level. While most people in Europe already live in countries with a CPG, this is not the case for CI registries. European-wide consensus on CPGs or registries does not yet exist. The present study thus provides a first assessment of the distribution of CI-related CPGs and registries.
Background: About 30 million people in the EU and USA, respectively, suffer from a rare disease. Driven by European legislative requirements, national strategies for the improvement of care in rare diseases are being developed. To improve timely and correct diagnosis for patients with rare diseases, the development of a registry for undiagnosed patients was recommended by the German National Action Plan. In this paper we focus on the question on how such a registry for undiagnosed patients can be built and which information it should contain. Results: To develop a registry for undiagnosed patients, a software for data acquisition and storage, an appropriate data set and an applicable terminology/classification system for the data collected are needed. We have used the open-source software Open-Source Registry System for Rare Diseases (OSSE) to build the registry for undiagnosed patients. Our data set is based on the minimal data set for rare disease patient registries recommended by the European Rare Disease Registries Platform. We extended this Common Data Set to also include symptoms, clinical findings and other diagnoses. In order to ensure findability, comparability and statistical analysis, symptoms, clinical findings and diagnoses have to be encoded. We evaluated three medical ontologies (SNOMED CT, HPO and LOINC) for their usefulness. With exact matches of 98% of tested medical terms, a mean number of five deposited synonyms, SNOMED CT seemed to fit our needs best. HPO and LOINC provided 73% and 31% of exacts matches of clinical terms respectively. Allowing more generic codes for a defined symptom, with SNOMED CT 99%, with HPO 89% and with LOINC 39% of terms could be encoded. Conclusions: With the use of the OSSE software and a data set, which, in addition to the Common Data Set, focuses on symptoms and clinical findings, a functioning and meaningful registry for undiagnosed patients can be implemented. The next step is the implementation of the registry in centres for rare diseases. With the help of medical informatics and big data analysis, case similarity analyses could be realized and aid as a decision-support tool enabling diagnosis of some undiagnosed patients.
Background: Lipodystrophy syndromes comprise a group of extremely rare and heterogeneous diseases characterized by a selective loss of adipose tissue in the absence of nutritional deprivation or catabolic state. Because of the rarity of each lipodystrophy subform, research in this area is difficult and international co-operation mandatory. Therefore, in 2016, the European Consortium of Lipodystrophies (ECLip) decided to create a registry for patients with lipodystrophy.
Results: The registry was build using the information technology Open Source Registry System for Rare Diseases in the EU (OSSE), an open-source software and toolbox. Lipodystrophy specific data forms were developed based on current knowledge of typical signs and symptoms of lipodystrophy. The platform complies with the new General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by ensuring patient pseudonymization, informational separation of powers, secure data storage and security of communication, user authentication, person specific access to data, and recording of access granted to any data. Inclusion criteria are all patients with any form of lipodystrophy (with the exception of HIV-associated lipodystrophy). So far 246 patients from nine centres (Amsterdam, Bologna, Izmir, Leipzig, Münster, Moscow, Pisa, Santiago de Compostela, Ulm) have been recruited. With the help from the six centres on the brink of recruitment (Cambridge, Lille, Nicosia, Paris, Porto, Rome) this number is expected to double within the next one or 2 years.
Conclusions: A European registry for all patients with lipodystrophy will provide a platform for improved research in the area of lipodystrophy. All physicians from Europe and neighbouring countries caring for patients with lipodystrophy are invited to participate in the ECLip Registry.
Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03553420). Registered 14 March 2018, retrospectively registered.
Background: Urachal cancer (UrC) is a rare disease with limited availability of representative incidence and clinical data. Although, the prevalence is accounting for less than 1% of bladder tumors, the 5-year survival rate is around only 50% for patients with resectable tumors, and even worse for patients with metastatic disease. Due to the lack of comprehensive prospective studies, our current knowledge of UrC is still limited.
Objective: The present study aimed to summarize the available registry-based studies with unselected UrC patients to evaluate its incidence and clinicopathological characteristics.
Material and methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of registry-based UrC publications on the 15th of May 2023 in 5 databases, which identified 4,748 publications. After duplicate removal and selection by 2 independent investigators, 6 publications proved to be appropriate for the final meta-analysis. Estimated incidence and clinicopathological parameters were extracted.
Results: Estimated incidence ranged between 0.022 and 0.060/ 100.000 person-years, with the highest occurrence in Japan and the lowest in Canada, while the random effect model calculated an overall incidence rate of 0.04 (95%CI: 0.03–0.05) 100.000 person-years. The median age at first diagnosis was 60 years (range: 58–64). The female to male ratio was 2:3. Lymph node or distant metastases were present in 9% and 14% of patients. The predominant tumour type was adenocarcinoma (86%) followed by urothelial carcinoma (12%) and squamous cell carcinoma (2%). The 5-year survival rate was 51.0% with 95%CI: 45.2–57.4.
Conclusions: Our study provides an up-to-date comparison of estimated incidence rates between 6 countries of 3 continents based on rigorously selected registry-based studies. The results suggest low incidence rates for UrC with considerable geographic differences. The present meta-analysis provides unbiased registry-based data on the incidence, clinicopathological parameters and survival of UrC.