Suchergebnisse

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all participants and funders of PICC and of the individual cohort studies. Members of PICC Steering Group: Dr. Angus D. Macleod, Dr. Carl E. Counsell, University of Aberdeen (chairperson), UK; Prof. Ole-Bjørn Tysnes, University of Bergen, Norway; Marta Camacho, Dr. Caroline Williams-Gray, University of Cambridge, UK; Dr. Rachael A. Lawson, Newcastle University, UK; Dr. Jodi Maple-Grødem, Prof. Guido Alves, Stavanger University Hospital, Norway; Prof. Lars Forgren, Umeå, Dr. David Backstrom, University, Sweden. We acknowledge the contributions of members of the individual study groups: PICNICS study: Principal investigators: Roger A. Barker, Caroline H. Williams-Gray. Study personnel: Jonathan Evans, Gemma Cummins, David P. Breen, Ruwani Wijeyekoon, Kirsten Scott, Tom Stoker, Julia Greenland, Marta Camacho, Natalie Valle Guzman, Lucy Collins, Simon Stott and Sarah Mason. ParkWest Study: ParkWest Principal investigators: Guido Alves (Norwegian Centre for Movement Disorders, Stavanger University Hospital) and Ole-Bjørn Tysnes (Haukeland University Hospital). Study personnel: Michaela Dreetz Gjerstad, Kenn Freddy Pedersen, Elin Bjelland Forsaa, Veslemøy Hamre Frantzen, Anita Laugaland, Jodi Maple-Grødem, Johannes Lange, Karen Simonsen, Eldbjørg Fiske and Ingvild Dalen, Bernd Müller, Geir Olve Skeie and Marit Renså; Wenche Telstad, Aliaksei Labusau and Jane Kastet; Ineke HogenEsch, Marianne Kjerandsen and Liv Kari Håland; Karen Herlofson, Solgunn Ongre and Siri Bruun. The PICC collaboration was funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government, NHS Education for Scotland, and the Academy of Medical Sciences. The PICNICS study has received funding from the Cure Parkinson's Trust, the Van Geest Foundation, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Parkinson's UK. This work was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre Dementia and Neurodegeneration Theme (grant no. 146281). The views expressed are those of ...

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all participants and funders of PICC and of the individual cohort studies. Members of PICC Steering Group: Dr. Angus D. Macleod, Dr. Carl E. Counsell, University of Aberdeen (chairperson), UK; Prof. Ole-Bjørn Tysnes, University of Bergen, Norway; Marta Camacho, Dr. Caroline Williams-Gray, University of Cambridge, UK; Dr. Rachael A. Lawson, Newcastle University, UK; Dr. Jodi Maple-Grødem, Prof. Guido Alves, Stavanger University Hospital, Norway; Prof. Lars Forgren, Umeå, Dr. David Backstrom, University, Sweden. We acknowledge the contributions of members of the individual study groups: PICNICS study: Principal investigators: Roger A. Barker, Caroline H. Williams-Gray. Study personnel: Jonathan Evans, Gemma Cummins, David P. Breen, Ruwani Wijeyekoon, Kirsten Scott, Tom Stoker, Julia Greenland, Marta Camacho, Natalie Valle Guzman, Lucy Collins, Simon Stott and Sarah Mason. ParkWest Study: ParkWest Principal investigators: Guido Alves (Norwegian Centre for Movement Disorders, Stavanger University Hospital) and Ole-Bjørn Tysnes (Haukeland University Hospital). Study personnel: Michaela Dreetz Gjerstad, Kenn Freddy Pedersen, Elin Bjelland Forsaa, Veslemøy Hamre Frantzen, Anita Laugaland, Jodi Maple-Grødem, Johannes Lange, Karen Simonsen, Eldbjørg Fiske and Ingvild Dalen, Bernd Müller, Geir Olve Skeie and Marit Renså; Wenche Telstad, Aliaksei Labusau and Jane Kastet; Ineke HogenEsch, Marianne Kjerandsen and Liv Kari Håland; Karen Herlofson, Solgunn Ongre and Siri Bruun. The PICC collaboration was funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government, NHS Education for Scotland, and the Academy of Medical Sciences. The PICNICS study has received funding from the Cure Parkinson's Trust, the Van Geest Foundation, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Parkinson's UK. This work was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre Dementia and Neurodegeneration Theme (grant no. 146281). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. M.C. is supported by Centre for Parkinson's Plus and funded by the Evelyn Trust (proj ref 19/24). R.A.B. is supported by the Wellcome Trust Stem Cell Institute (Cambridge 203151/Z/16/Z). D.P.B. is supported by a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (214571/Z/18/Z). C.H.W.G. is supported by a RCUK/UKRI Research Innovation Fellowship awarded by the MRC (MR/R007446/1) and by the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-Plus. The Norwegian ParkWest study has been funded by the Research Council of Norway (grant number 177966) and the Western Norway Regional Health Authority (grant number 911218), and the Norwegian Parkinson's Disease Association. J.M.-G. and G.A. are supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant number 287842). R.A.L. is supported by a Senior Research Fellowship from Parkinson's UK (F-1801). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Background: Airway stenting (AS) commenced in Europe circa 1987 with the first placement of a dedicated silicone airway stent. Subsequently, over the last 3 decades, AS was spread throughout Europe, using different insertion techniques and different types of stents. Objectives: This study is an international survey conducted by the European Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP) focusing on AS practice within 26 European countries. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all EABIP National Delegates in February 2015. National delegates were responsible for obtaining precise and objective data regarding the current AS practice in their country. The deadline for data collection was February 2016. Results: France, Germany, and the UK are the 3 leading countries in terms of number of centres performing AS. These 3 nations represent the highest ranked nations within Europe in terms of gross national income. Overall, pulmonologists perform AS exclusively in 5 countries and predominately in 12. AS is performed almost exclusively in public hospitals. AS performed under general anaesthesia is the rule for the majority of institutions, and local anaesthesia is an alternative in 9 countries. Rigid bronchoscopy techniques are predominant in 20 countries. Amongst commercially available stents, both Dumon and Ultraflex are by far the most commonly deployed. Finally, 11 countries reported that AS is an economically viable activity, while 10 claimed that it is not. Conclusion: This EABIP survey demonstrates that there is significant heterogeneity in AS practice within Europe. Therapeutic bronchoscopy training and economic issues/reimbursement for procedures are likely to be the primary reasons explaining these findings.

Background: Airway stenting (AS) commenced in Europe circa 1987 with the first placement of a dedicated silicone airway stent. Subsequently, over the last 3 decades, AS was spread throughout Europe, using different insertion techniques and different types of stents. Objectives: This study is an international survey conducted by the European Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP) focusing on AS practice within 26 European countries. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all EABIP National Delegates in February 2015. National delegates were responsible for obtaining precise and objective data regarding the current AS practice in their country. The deadline for data collection was February 2016. Results: France, Germany, and the UK are the 3 leading countries in terms of number of centres performing AS. These 3 nations represent the highest ranked nations within Europe in terms of gross national income. Overall, pulmonologists perform AS exclusively in 5 countries and predominately in 12. AS is performed almost exclusively in public hospitals. AS performed under general anaesthesia is the rule for the majority of institutions, and local anaesthesia is an alternative in 9 countries. Rigid bronchoscopy techniques are predominant in 20 countries. Amongst commercially available stents, both Dumon and Ultraflex are by far the most commonly deployed. Finally, 11 countries reported that AS is an economically viable activity, while 10 claimed that it is not. Conclusion: This EABIP survey demonstrates that there is significant heterogeneity in AS practice within Europe. Therapeutic bronchoscopy training and economic issues/reimbursement for procedures are likely to be the primary reasons explaining these findings. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel