(C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Vascular Surgery.”
“Background and Objectives In Australia since 2000, donors are deferred for 12months since last male-to-male sexual contact.

There is no estimate of the prevalence of non-compliance (i.e. failure to disclose a risk during the predonation interview which would lead to deferral) with the policy in Australia; however, published studies elsewhere indicate a range of 08-11%. We investigated the rate of, timing and motivation for non-compliance.

Materials and Methods A nationally representative sample of donors who had made a recent donation negative for transfusion-transmissible infection testing was surveyed using AZD0530 an anonymous, online instrument. Non-compliance was considered as a yes’ response to the current screening question. C59 Wnt cell line Non-compliers were requested to define the timing of the last sexual contact relevant to their most recent donation. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to define factors associated with non-compliance.

Results Of 14476 responses from male donors,

34 (023%, 95% CI: 016-033%) were non-compliant of whom 24 (017%, 95% CI: 011-025%) had contact within 6months of donation. Factors significantly associated with non-compliance included: multiple sexual partners, history of injecting drug use, perception of a lack of privacy during interview and preference for a computer-based

questionnaire.

Conclusion Our study confirms high compliance (>997%) to the 12-month deferral for selleck products male-to-male sex in Australia providing reassuring evidence for the efficacy of the screening question. Issues of privacy’ and discomfort’ associated with disclosure suggest the use of validated audio computer-assisted structured interview as a possible option for improving compliance with the donor questionnaire.”
“Guidelines proposed bioprosthesis implantation for aortic valve disease if the patients were at least 65 years old at the time of surgery, with a trend towards even younger patients in recent years. Considering the adverse effects of lifetime anticoagulation, new biological valves (less prone to degeneration) and new technologies may lead patients and surgeons to different choices. Therefore, it is interesting to analyse the results of aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement in patients aged < 65 years at the time of surgery.

From January 2000 to December 2010, 84 patients aged < 65 years at the time of surgery had undergone an aortic bio-prosthetic valve replacement. A mid-term follow-up [(FU) mean FU time: 54.4 +/- 39.2 months] was done in August 2011 in all patients (FU completeness: 100%). Results were compared with patients who had a mechanical prosthetic aortic valve replacement during the same period.