Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD
Résumé : International audience
Aim The global increase in the rate of cesarean sections (CS) is currently an issue. We aimed to assess the rate of CS locally and to identify cases in which this procedure may have been avoidable. Methods In this prospective consecutive series, we analyzed the 478 CS carried out in our unit in 2009. We analyzed the characteristics of each case, and classified each as potentially avoidable or unavoidable. Results The total rate of CS was 24.0%, including 1.7% that was scored as potentially avoidable. Parity, gestational age at birth, birthweight, cases requiring cervical ripening, cases of labor induction, and CS during labor were all significantly higher or more frequent among potentially avoidable CS. Multivariate analysis indicated that the risk of potentially avoidable CS was positively associated with gestational age and tended to be negatively associated with parity. The main indications for potentially avoidable CS were cervical dystocia and abnormal fetal heart rate, and for unavoidable CS they were abnormal fetal heart rate and history of previous CS. Conclusion Labor, especially when induced, seems to be the key period for the prevention of ‘avoidable’ CS. This is particularly important given that potentially avoidable CS are more frequently associated with uncomplicated pregnancies than are unavoidable CS. A woman's first CS increases the likelihood of CS for subsequent deliveries, so the prevention of the first CS is a key aim for reducing the overall rate of CS
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research

hal-01305484
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01305484
PUBMED : 27094021
DOI : 10.1111/jog.13007

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490