Porównanie trójwymiarowej i dwuwymiarowej analizy ilościowej tętnic wieńcowych w odniesieniu do pomiaru długości segmentów wieńcowych u pacjentów poddawanych diagnostycznej koronarografii

Cel: Określenie, czy trójwymiarowa, ilościowa analiza angiograficzna naczyń wieńcowych (3D QCA) ma przewagę nad standardową oceną dwuwymiarową (2D QCA) polegającą na zwiększeniu dokładności i precyzji pomiarów długości oraz wyeliminowaniu skrócenia typowego dla analiz 2D. Materiał i metody: Wykonano ogółem 800 pomiarów długości odcinka pomiędzy markerami na prowadnikach wieńcowych wprowadzonych do tętnicy wieńcowej (8 długości na prowadniku w zakresie 5–40 mm) z zastosowaniem oprogramowania 3D i standardowego oprogramowania 2D w porównaniu ze znanymi odległościami znaczników na prowadniku wieńcowym u 21 pacjentów poddanych koronarografii. Wyniki: W analizie 2D QCA pomiary były z reguły zaniżone w stosunku do rzeczywistej długości mierzonego odcinka, przy czym wielkość błędu wzrastała wraz z bezwzględną długością mierzonego odcinka. Analizy za pomocą 3D QCA wykazały minimalne różnice pomiarów w stosunku do rzeczywistych odległości pomiędzy markerami w całym zakresie badanych długości. Wnioski: Technika 3D QCA minimalizuje błędy pomiarów długości związane z artefaktem skrócenia obrazowego obiektu (foreshortening) typowego dla 2D QCA wykazuje minimalne odstępstwa od rzeczywistych długości w stosunku do analiz 2D QCA. 3D QCA ma szczególną przewagę w przypadku większych długości.Aim: To determine if three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiographic analysis (3D QCA) provides an advantage over twodimensional (2D QCA) by increasing accuracy and precision of length measurements through compensating for foreshortening inherent to 2D images. Material and methods: A total of 800 inter-marker length measurements were performed (8 per wire, 5-40 mm) with novel 3D software and standard 2D software and compared with the true lengths of the inter-marker distances on the wire in coronary vessels of 21 patients recruited. Results: 2D QCA generally underestimated true length in comparison to 3D, and the discrepancy increased with absolute length. In contrast, 3D QCA showed a minimal difference from true length over the examined range of lengths. Conclusions: 3D QCA minimizes errors in length measurements associated with foreshortening, shows minimal difference from true length, and performs significantly better in comparison to 2D QCA. The advantage of 3D QCA is more pronounced at longer lengths

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end