Varicocele has been associated with reduced male reproductive potential. With the advances in biomolecular techniques, it has been possible to better understand the mechanisms involved in testicular damage provoked by varicocele. Current evidence suggests the central role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the resultant oxidative stress (OS) in the pathogenesis of varicocele-associated male subfertility although the mechanisms have not yet been fully described and it is likely to be multifactorial. Excessive ROS is associated with sperm DNA fragmentation, which may mediate the clinical manifestation of poor sperm function and fertilization outcome related to varicocele. Testing of ROS/OS and DNA fragmentation has the potential to provide additional diagnostic and prognostic information compared to conventional semen analysis and may guide therapeutic management strategies in individual patient.

Background and Objectives: Prior studies have shown that stroke patients treated with percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) experience better outcomes than similar patients treated with warfarin. We investigated the impact of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure on post-stroke neurological outcomes in NVAF patients, compared with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy. Methods: Medical records for 1,427 patients in multiple registries and for 1,792 consecutive patients at 6 Korean hospitals were reviewed with respect to LAAO or NOAC treatment.Stroke severity in patients who experienced ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack after either treatment was assessed with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scoring at hospital discharge and at 3 and 12 months post-stroke. Results: mRS scores were significantly lower in LAAO patients at 3 (p<0.01) and 12 months (p<0.01) post-stroke, despite no significant differences in scores before the ischemic cerebrovascular event (p=0.22). The occurrences of disabling ischemic stroke in the LAAO and NOAC groups were 36.7% and 44.2% at discharge (p=0.47), 23.3% and 44.2% at 3 months post-stroke (p=0.04), and 13.3% and 43.0% at 12 months post-stroke (p=0.01), respectively.Recovery rates for disabling ischemic stroke at discharge to 12 months post-stroke were significantly higher for LAAO patients (50.0%) than for NOAC patients (5.6%) (p<0.01). Conclusions Percutaneous LAAO was associated with more favorable neurological outcomes after ischemic cerebrovascular event than NOAC treatment.

Background and Objectives: Prior studies have shown that stroke patients treated with percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) experience better outcomes than similar patients treated with warfarin. We investigated the impact of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure on post-stroke neurological outcomes in NVAF patients, compared with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy. Methods: Medical records for 1,427 patients in multiple registries and for 1,792 consecutive patients at 6 Korean hospitals were reviewed with respect to LAAO or NOAC treatment.Stroke severity in patients who experienced ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack after either treatment was assessed with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scoring at hospital discharge and at 3 and 12 months post-stroke. Results: mRS scores were significantly lower in LAAO patients at 3 (p<0.01) and 12 months (p<0.01) post-stroke, despite no significant differences in scores before the ischemic cerebrovascular event (p=0.22). The occurrences of disabling ischemic stroke in the LAAO and NOAC groups were 36.7% and 44.2% at discharge (p=0.47), 23.3% and 44.2% at 3 months post-stroke (p=0.04), and 13.3% and 43.0% at 12 months post-stroke (p=0.01), respectively.Recovery rates for disabling ischemic stroke at discharge to 12 months post-stroke were significantly higher for LAAO patients (50.0%) than for NOAC patients (5.6%) (p<0.01). Conclusions Percutaneous LAAO was associated with more favorable neurological outcomes after ischemic cerebrovascular event than NOAC treatment.

Despite advances in the field of male reproductive health, idiopathic male infertility, in which a man has altered semen characteristics without an identifiable cause and there is no female factor infertility, remains a challenging condition to diagnose and manage. Increasing evidence suggests that oxidative stress (OS) plays an independent role in the etiology of male infertility, with 30% to 80% of infertile men having elevated seminal reactive oxygen species levels. OS can negatively affect fertility via a number of pathways, including interference with capacitation and possible damage to sperm membrane and DNA, which may impair the sperm's potential to fertilize an egg and develop into a healthy embryo. Adequate evaluation of male reproductive potential should therefore include an assessment of sperm OS. We propose the term Male Oxidative Stress Infertility, or MOSI, as a novel descriptor for infertile men with abnormal semen characteristics and OS, including many patients who were previously classified as having idiopathic male infertility. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) can be a useful clinical biomarker for the classification of MOSI, as it takes into account the levels of both oxidants and reductants (antioxidants). Current treatment protocols for OS, including the use of antioxidants, are not evidence-based and have the potential for complications and increased healthcare-related expenditures. Utilizing an easy, reproducible, and cost-effective test to measure ORP may provide a more targeted, reliable approach for administering antioxidant therapy while minimizing the risk of antioxidant overdose. With the increasing awareness and understanding of MOSI as a distinct male infertility diagnosis, future research endeavors can facilitate the development of evidence-based treatments that target its underlying cause.
Antioxidants ; Classification ; Clinical Protocols ; Diagnosis ; DNA ; Embryonic Structures ; Female ; Fertility ; Health Expenditures ; Humans ; Infertility ; Infertility, Male ; Male ; Membranes ; Ovum ; Oxidants ; Oxidation-Reduction ; Oxidative Stress ; Reactive Oxygen Species ; Reducing Agents ; Reproductive Health ; Semen ; Spermatozoa ; Subject Headings

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.