Institution
Mayo Clinic
Healthcare•Rochester, Minnesota, United States•
About: Mayo Clinic is a healthcare organization based out in Rochester, Minnesota, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 63387 authors who have published 169578 publications receiving 8114006 citations.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Cancer, Breast cancer, Heart failure
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: High-resolution recombination mapping and candidate gene sequencing in 46 families found six disease-segregating mutations in a gene encoding a large, multifunctional protein, LRRK2 (leucine-rich repeat kinase 2), which may be central to the pathogenesis of several major neurodegenerative disorders associated with parkinsonism.
2,757 citations
••
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Barcelona2, St George's, University of London3, Taipei Veterans General Hospital4, Maastricht University5, Washington University in St. Louis6, Imperial College London7, University of Virginia8, Virginia Commonwealth University9, Thomas Jefferson University10, Beaumont Hospital11, University of Bordeaux12, Leipzig University13, University of Oklahoma14, University of Michigan15, Royal Melbourne Hospital16, University College Dublin17, Korea University18, University of Birmingham19, University of Münster20, University of Western Ontario21, Cleveland Clinic22, Harvard University23, University of Pennsylvania24, Northwestern University25, Université de Montréal26, Mayo Clinic27, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai28, University of California, Los Angeles29, National Yang-Ming University30, Loyola University Chicago31
TL;DR: This 2012 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a Task Force, convened by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society and charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of this procedure.
Abstract: During the past decade, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved rapidly from an investigational procedure to its current status as a commonly performed ablation procedure in many major hospitals throughout the world. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard or minimally invasive techniques, is also performed in many major hospitals throughout the world.
In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society.1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology. Since the publication of the 2007 document, there has been much learned about AF ablation, and the indications for these procedures have changed. Therefore the purpose of this 2012 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a Task Force, convened by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society and charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of this procedure. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation, including definitions relevant to this topic.
This statement summarizes the opinion of the Task Force members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter ablation of AF. Rather the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient …
2,754 citations
••
TL;DR: Data indicate that cellular senescence is causally implicated in generating age-related phenotypes and that removal of senescent cells can prevent or delay tissue dysfunction and extend healthspan.
Abstract: Advanced age is the main risk factor for most chronic diseases and functional deficits in humans, but the fundamental mechanisms that drive ageing remain largely unknown, impeding the development of interventions that might delay or prevent age-related disorders and maximize healthy lifespan. Cellular senescence, which halts the proliferation of damaged or dysfunctional cells, is an important mechanism to constrain the malignant progression of tumour cells. Senescent cells accumulate in various tissues and organs with ageing and have been hypothesized to disrupt tissue structure and function because of the components they secrete. However, whether senescent cells are causally implicated in age-related dysfunction and whether their removal is beneficial has remained unknown. To address these fundamental questions, we made use of a biomarker for senescence, p16(Ink4a), to design a novel transgene, INK-ATTAC, for inducible elimination of p16(Ink4a)-positive senescent cells upon administration of a drug. Here we show that in the BubR1 progeroid mouse background, INK-ATTAC removes p16(Ink4a)-positive senescent cells upon drug treatment. In tissues--such as adipose tissue, skeletal muscle and eye--in which p16(Ink4a) contributes to the acquisition of age-related pathologies, life-long removal of p16(Ink4a)-expressing cells delayed onset of these phenotypes. Furthermore, late-life clearance attenuated progression of already established age-related disorders. These data indicate that cellular senescence is causally implicated in generating age-related phenotypes and that removal of senescent cells can prevent or delay tissue dysfunction and extend healthspan.
2,738 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper aims to demonstrate the efforts towards in-situ applicability of EMMARM, as to provide real-time information about concrete mechanical properties such as E-modulus and compressive strength.
2,734 citations
••
Harvard University1, Aarhus University2, University of Texas at Austin3, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center4, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens5, University of Kentucky6, Utrecht University7, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai8, Tufts University9, Tulane University10, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology11, University of Washington12, Stanford University13, Erasmus University Rotterdam14, University of Turku15, University of Münster16, Mayo Clinic17, Emory University18, University of Bristol19, University of Ulm20, Veterans Health Administration21, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston22, University of California, Los Angeles23, University of Pavia24, Pfizer25, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center26, Lenox Hill Hospital27, Baylor College of Medicine28, University of Maryland, Baltimore29, Karolinska Institutet30, University of Chicago31, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center32, Northwestern University33, Indiana University34
TL;DR: The term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future and a quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed.
Abstract: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.
2,719 citations
Authors
Showing all 64325 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Eugene Braunwald | 230 | 1711 | 264576 |
Peter Libby | 211 | 932 | 182724 |
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Rob Knight | 201 | 1061 | 253207 |
Robert M. Califf | 196 | 1561 | 167961 |
Eric J. Topol | 193 | 1373 | 151025 |
Dennis W. Dickson | 191 | 1243 | 148488 |
Gordon B. Mills | 187 | 1273 | 186451 |
Julie E. Buring | 186 | 950 | 132967 |
Patrick W. Serruys | 186 | 2427 | 173210 |
Cornelia M. van Duijn | 183 | 1030 | 146009 |
Paul G. Richardson | 183 | 1533 | 155912 |
John C. Morris | 183 | 1441 | 168413 |
Valentin Fuster | 179 | 1462 | 185164 |
Ronald C. Petersen | 178 | 1091 | 153067 |