Marco De Carlo

Dr. Marco De Carlo

Cardiothoracic and Vascular, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

30Years (1997-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
29 August 2014 in European Heart Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SWStephan Windecker
Stephan Windecker
PKPhilippe Kolh
Philippe Kolh
FAFernando Alfonso
Fernando Alfonso
JCJean-Philippe Collet
Jean-Philippe Collet
JCJochen Cremer
Jochen Cremer
JDJohn Davies
John Davies

26 August 2017 in European Heart Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VAVictor Aboyans
Victor Aboyans
Jean-Baptiste RiccoJean-Baptiste Ricco
Jean-Baptiste Ricco
MBMarie-Louise E L Bartelink
Marie-Louise E L Bartelink
MBMartin Björck
Martin Björck
MBMarianne Brodmann
Marianne Brodmann
AOAgu Obiekezie
Agu Obiekezie
The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these guidelines are available on the ESC website http://www.escardio.org/guidelines.

26 August 2011 in European Heart Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MTMichal Tendera
Michal Tendera
VAVictor Aboyans
Victor Aboyans
MBMarie-Louise Bartelink
Marie-Louise Bartelink
IBIris Baumgartner
Iris Baumgartner
DCDenis Clément
Denis Clément
DRDocument Reviewers
Document Reviewers
Guidelines summarize and evaluate all available evidence, at the time of the writing process, on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient, with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes but are complements for textbooks and cover the ESC Core Curriculum topics. Guidelines and recommendations should help the physicians to make decisions in their daily practice. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible physician(s).

25 January 2011 in Circulation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CTCorrado Tamburino
Corrado Tamburino
DCDavide Capodanno
Davide Capodanno
ARAngelo Ramondo
Angelo Ramondo
APAnna Sonia Petronio
Anna Sonia Petronio
FEFederica Ettori
Federica Ettori
GUGian Paolo Ussia
Gian Paolo Ussia
Background—: There is a lack of information on the incidence and predictors of early mortality at 30 days and late mortality between 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the self-expanding CoreValve Revalving prosthesis. Methods and Results—: A total of 663 consecutive patients (mean age 81.0±7.3 years) underwent TAVI with the third generation 18-Fr CoreValve device in 14 centers. Procedural success and intraprocedural mortality were 98% and 0.9%, respectively. The cumulative incidences of mortality were 5.4% at 30 days, 12.2% at 6 months, and 15.0% at 1 year. The incidence density of mortality was 12.3 per 100 person-year of observation. Clinical and hemodynamic benefits observed acutely after TAVI were sustained at 1 year. Paravalvular leakages were trace to mild in the majority of cases. Conversion to open heart surgery (odds ratio [OR] 38.68), cardiac tamponade (OR 10.97), major access site complications (OR 8.47), left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR 3.51), prior balloon valvuloplasty (OR 2.87), and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.66) were independent predictors of mortality at 30 days, whereas prior stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 5.47), postprocedural paravalvular leak ≥2+ (HR 3.79), prior acute pulmonary edema (HR 2.70), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.53) were independent predictors of mortality between 30 days and 1 year. Conclusions—: Benefit of TAVI with the CoreValve Revalving System is maintained over time up to 1 year, with acceptable mortality rates at various time points. Although procedural complications are strongly associated with early mortality at 30 days, comorbidities and postprocedural paravalvular aortic regurgitation ≥2+ mainly impact late outcomes between 30 days and 1 year.

1 March 2018 in European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
VAVictor Aboyans
Victor Aboyans
JRJean-Baptiste Ricco
Jean-Baptiste Ricco
MBMarie-Louise E.L. Bartelink
Marie-Louise E.L. Bartelink
MBMartin Björck
Martin Björck
MBMarianne Brodmann
Marianne Brodmann
JZJose Luis Zamorano
Jose Luis Zamorano

1 August 2015 in Atherosclerosis
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CVCharalambos Vlachopoulos
Charalambos Vlachopoulos
PXPanagiotis Xaplanteris
Panagiotis Xaplanteris
VAVictor Aboyans
Victor Aboyans
MBMarianne Brodmann
Marianne Brodmann
RCRenata Cifkova
Renata Cifkova
RTRaymond R. Townsend
Raymond R. Townsend
While risk scores are invaluable tools for adapted preventive strategies, a significant gap exists between predicted and actual event rates. Additional tools to further stratify the risk of patients at an individual level are biomarkers. A surrogate endpoint is a biomarker that is intended as a substitute for a clinical endpoint. In order to be considered as a surrogate endpoint of cardiovascular events, a biomarker should satisfy several criteria, such as proof of concept, prospective validation, incremental value, clinical utility, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, ease of use, methodological consensus, and reference values. We scrutinized the role of peripheral (i.e. not related to coronary circulation) noninvasive vascular biomarkers for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. Most of the biomarkers examined fit within the concept of early vascular aging. Biomarkers that fulfill most of the criteria and, therefore, are close to being considered a clinical surrogate endpoint are carotid ultrasonography, ankle-brachial index and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity; biomarkers that fulfill some, but not all of the criteria are brachial ankle pulse wave velocity, central haemodynamics/wave reflections and C-reactive protein; biomarkers that do no not at present fulfill essential criteria are flow-mediated dilation, endothelial peripheral arterial tonometry, oxidized LDL and dysfunctional HDL. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether a specific vascular biomarker is overly superior. A prospective study in which all vascular biomarkers are measured is still lacking. In selected cases, the combined assessment of more than one biomarker may be required.