Notes![what is notes.io? What is notes.io?](/theme/images/whatisnotesio.png)
![]() ![]() Notes - notes.io |
BACKGROUND CONTEXT Biopsy is important to obtain microbiological and histopathological diagnosis in spine infections and tumors. To date, there have been no prospective randomized trials comparing fluoroscopic guided and computed tomography (CT) transpedicular biopsy techniques. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, safety and diagnostic outcome of these two diagnostic techniques. TIC10 research buy PURPOSE To evaluate the accuracy, safety and diagnostic outcome of fluoroscopic guided and CT transpedicular biopsy techniques. STUDY DESIGN Prospective randomized trial PATIENT SAMPLE Sixty consecutive patients with clinical symptoms and radiological features suggestive of spinal infection or malignancy were recruited and randomized into fluoroscopic and CT guided spinal biopsy groups. Both groups were similar in terms of patient demographics, distribution of spinal infections and malignancy cases and the level of biopsies. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of both methods, determinximately 26 times higher in the CT group. Radiation exposure to doctors in the CT group was approximately two times higher compared to the fluoroscopic group if a lead shield was not used. Lead shields significantly reduced radiation exposure to doctors anywhere from 2 to 8 times. No complications were observed for either group and the differences in post biopsy pain scores were not significant. CONCLUSIONS The accuracy, procedure time, complication rate and pain score for both groups were similar. However, radiation exposure to patients and doctors were significantly higher in the CT group without lead protection. With lead protection, radiation to doctors reduced significantly. BACKGROUND & AIMS Management of delayed (within 30 days) post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) has not been standardized. Patients often undergo colonoscopies that do not provide any benefit. We aimed to identify factors associated with therapeutic intervention and active bleeding after DPPB. METHODS We performed a retrospective study of 548 patients with bleeding within 30 days after an index polypectomy (DPPB; 71.9% underwent colonoscopy, 2.6% primary angiographic embolization, and 25.5% were managed without intervention) at 6 tertiary centres in Spain, from January 2010 through September 2018. We collected demographic and medical data from patients. The primary outcomes were need for therapeutic intervention and the presence of active bleeding during colonoscopy. RESULTS A need for therapeutic intervention was independently associated with the use of anti-thrombotic agents, haemoglobin decrease > 2 g/dL, haemodynamic instability, and comorbidities (P less then .05). The bleeding point during colonoscopy was identified in 344 patients; 74 of these patients (21.5%) had active bleeding. Active use of anticoagulants (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), left-sided polyps (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1-3.8), prior use of electrocautery (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1), and pedunculated polyp morphology (OR, 1.8, 95% CI, 1-3.2) significantly increased the risk of encountering active bleeding. We developed a visual nomogram to estimate the risk of active bleeding. Overall, 43% of the cohort did not require any hemostatic therapy. Rebleeding ( less then 6%) and transfusion requirements were low in those managed without intervention. CONCLUSIONS In a study of patients with DPPB, we found that almost half do not warrant any therapeutic intervention. Colonoscopy is often overused for patients with DPPB. We identified independent risk factors for active bleeding that might be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from colonoscopy. BACKGROUND & AIMS Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) is a non-invasive tool for detecting hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in patients who have not received liver transplants. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of VCTE in detection of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in patients who have undergone liver transplantation. METHODS We performed a prospective study of 99 liver transplant recipients assessed by VCTE using a standard protocol. Controlled attenuation parameter cutoff values for pairwise steatosis grade and liver stiffness measurements (LSM) and cutoff values for pairwise fibrosis stage were determined using cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve analyses. We calculated sensitivity (fixed at 90%) and specificity (fixed at 90%) values. RESULTS A controlled attenuation parameter cutoff value of 270 dB/m detected any hepatic steatosis with an AUROC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93 ). VCTE detected steatosis grades 2-3 vs 0-1 with an AUROC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) and steatosis grade 3 vs 0-2 was similar and AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). When we used an LSM cutoff value of 10.5 kPa, VCTE identified patients with advanced fibrosis (fibrosis stages≥3) with an AUROC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99). At fixed sensitivity, the cutoff LSM value of 10.5k Pa excluded advanced fibrosis with a negative predictive value of 0.99. At fixed specificity, the cutoff LSM value of 16.9 kPa detected advanced fibrosis with a sensitivity of 0.86, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.40, and a negative predictive value of 0.99. CONCLUSIONS VCTE accurately detects hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in recipients of liver transplants. This non-invasive method might be used to identify patients in need of confirmatory liver biopsy analysis. BACKGROUND & AIMS Ascites has been classified according to quantity and response to medical therapy. Despite its precise definitions, little is known about the effects of grade 1 ascites or recurrent ascites (i.e. ascites that recurs at least on 3 occasions within a 12-month period despite dietary sodium restriction and adequate diuretic dosage) on patient outcome. We studied progression of grade 1 ascites and recurrent ascites in a large cohort of outpatients with cirrhosis. METHODS We performed a post-hoc analysis of data from 547 outpatients with cirrhosis (259 without ascites, 54 patients with grade 1 ascites, 234 with grade 2 or 3 ascites) who participated a care management program study in Italy from March 2003 through September 2017. We collected demographic, clinical, and laboratory data and patients were evaluated at least every 6 months. Patients received abdominal ultrasound analysis at study inclusion and at least twice a year. Number and volume of paracentesis were collected, when available. Patients were followed until death, liver transplantation, or March 2018.
Read More: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/tic-10.html
![]() |
Notes is a web-based application for online taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000+ notes created and continuing...
With notes.io;
- * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
- * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
- * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
- * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
- * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.
Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.
Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!
Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )
Free: Notes.io works for 14 years and has been free since the day it was started.
You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio
Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io
Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio
Regards;
Notes.io Team