Is There a Crucial Link Between Vitamin D Status and Inflammatory Response in Patients With COVID-19?

Background: Hypovitaminosis D has been suggested to play a possible role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Methods: The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between vitamin D status and a biochemical panel of inflammatory markers in a cohort of patients with COVID-19. A secondary endpoint was to evaluate the correlation between 25OHD levels and the severity of the disease. Ninety-three consecutive patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were evaluated from March to May 2020 in two hospital units in Pisa, in whom biochemical inflammatory markers, 25OHD levels, P/F ratio at nadir during hospitalization, and complete clinical data were available. Results: Sixty-five percent of patients presented hypovitaminosis D (25OHD ≤ 20 ng/ml) and showed significantly higher IL-6 [20.8 (10.9–45.6) vs. 12.9 (8.7–21.1) pg/ml, p = 0.02], CRP [10.7 (4.2–19.2) vs. 5.9 (1.6–8.1) mg/dl, p = 0.003], TNF-a [8.9 (6.0–14.8) vs. 4.4 (1.5–10.6) pg/ml, p = 0.01], D-dimer [0.53 (0.25–0.72) vs. 0.22 (0.17–0.35) mg/l, p = 0.002], and IL-10 [3.7 (1.8–6.9) vs. 2.3 (0.5–5.8) pg/ml, p = 0.03]. A significant inverse correlation was found between 25OHD and all these markers, even adjusted for age and sex. Hypovitaminosis D was prevalent in patients with severe ARDS, compared with the other groups (75% vs. 68% vs. 55%, p < 0.001), and 25OHD levels were lower in nonsurvivor patients. Conclusions: The relationship between 25OHD levels and inflammatory markers suggests that vitamin D status needs to be taken into account in the management of these patients. If vitamin D is a marker of poor prognosis or a possible risk factor with beneficial effects from supplementation, this still needs to be elucidated

Measurement of Warfarin in the Oral Fluid of Patients Undergoing Anticoagulant Oral Therapy

BACKGROUND: Patients on warfarin therapy undergo invasive and expensive checks for the coagulability of their blood. No information on coagulation levels is currently available between two controls. METHODOLOGY: A method was developed to determine warfarin in oral fluid by HPLC and fluorimetric detection. The chromatographic separation was performed at room temperature on a C-18 reversed-phase column, 65% PBS and 35% methanol mobile phase, flow rate 0.7 mL/min, injection volume 25 µL, excitation wavelength 310 nm, emission wavelength 400 nm. FINDINGS: The method was free from interference and matrix effect, linear in the range 0.2-100 ng/mL, with a detection limit of 0.2 ng/mL. Its coefficient of variation was <3% for intra-day measurements and <5% for inter-day measurements. The average concentration of warfarin in the oral fluid of 50 patients was 2.5±1.6 ng/mL (range 0.8-7.6 ng/mL). Dosage was not correlated to INR (r = -0.03, p = 0.85) but positively correlated to warfarin concentration in the oral fluid (r = 0.39, p = 0.006). The correlation between warfarin concentration and pH in the oral fluid (r = 0.37, p = 0.009) confirmed the importance of pH in regulating the drug transfer from blood. A correlation between warfarin concentration in the oral fluid and INR was only found in samples with pH values ≥7.2 (r = 0.84, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin diffuses from blood to oral fluid. The method allows to measure its concentration in this matrix and to analyze correlations with INR and other parameters

La dose al paziente in diagnostica per immagini

XIV, 200 pagg.online resource

Awareness of radiation protection and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiography students, and radiology residents at an academic hospital: Results of a comprehensive survey

Purpose To evaluate the awareness of radiation protection issues and the knowledge of dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiology residents, and radiography students at an academic hospital. Material and methods A total of 159 young doctors and students (including 60 radiology residents, 56 medical students, and 43 radiography students) were issued a questionnaire consisting of 16 multiple choice questions divided into three separated sections (i.e., demographic data, awareness about radiation protection issues, and knowledge about radiation dose levels of common radiological examinations). Results Medical students claimed to have at least a good knowledge of radiation protection issues more frequently than radiology residents and radiography students (94.4% vs 55% and 35.7%, respectively; P < 0.05), with no cases of perceived excellent knowledge among radiography students. However, the actual knowledge of essential radiation protection topics such as regulations, patient and tissue susceptibility to radiation damage, professional radiation risk and dose optimisation, as well as of radiation doses delivered by common radiological procedures was significantly worse among medical students than radiology residents and radiography students (P < 0.05). Those latter significantly outperformed radiology residents as to knowledge of radiation protection issues (P < 0.01). Overall, less than 50% of survey respondents correctly answered all questions of the survey. Conclusions Radiology residents, radiography students and medical students have a limited awareness about radiation protection, with a specific gap of knowledge concerning real radiation doses of daily radiological examinations. Both undergraduate and postgraduate teaching needs to be effectively implemented with radiation safety courses

Radiation dose exposure in patients affected by lymphoma undergoing repeat CT examinations: how to manage the radiation dose variability

Purpose: To assess the variability of radiation dose exposure in patients affected by lymphoma undergoing repeat CT (computed tomography) examinations and to evaluate the influence of different scan parameters on the overall radiation dose. Materials and methods: A series of 34 patients (12 men and 22 women with a median age of 34.4 years) with lymphoma, after the initial staging CT underwent repeat follow-up CT examinations. For each patient and each repeat examination, age, sex, use of AEC system (Automated Exposure Control, i.e. current modulation), scan length, kV value, number of acquired scans (i.e. number of phases), abdominal size diameter and dose length product (DLP) were recorded. The radiation dose of just one venous phase was singled out from the DLP of the entire examination. All scan data were retrieved by our PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) by means of a dose monitoring software. Results: Among the variables we considered, no significant difference of radiation dose was observed among patients of different ages nor concerning tube voltage. On the contrary the dose delivered to the patients varied depending on sex, scan length and usage of AEC. No significant difference was observed depending on the behaviour of technologists, while radiologistsâ\u80\u99 choices had indirectly an impact on the radiation dose due to the different number of scans requested by each of them. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that patients affected by lymphoma who undergo repeat whole body CT scanning may receive unnecessary overexposure. We quantified and analyzed the most relevant variables in order to provide a useful tool to manage properly CT dose variability, estimating the amount of additional radiation dose for every single significant variable. Additional scans, incorrect scan length and incorrect usage of AEC system are the most relevant cause of patient radiation exposure

Automated contrast medium monitoring system for computed tomography - Intra-institutional audit

The aim of this study was to analyze the usage and the data recorded by a RIS-PACS-connected contrast medium (CM) monitoring system (Certegra®, Bayer Healthcare, Leverkusen, Germany) over 19 months of CT activity. The system used was connected to two dual syringe power injectors (each associated with a 16-row and a high definition 64-row multidetector CT scanner, respectively), allowing to manage contrast medium injection parameters and to send and retrieve CT study-related information via RIS/PACS for any scheduled contrast-enhanced CT examination. The system can handle up to 64 variables and can be accessed via touchscreen by CT operators as well as via a web interface by registered users with three different hierarchy levels. Data related to CM injection parameters (i.e. iodine concentration, volume and flow rate of CM, iodine delivery rate and iodine dose, CM injection pressure, and volume and flow rate of saline), patient weight and height, and type of CT study over a testing period spanning from 1 June 2013 to 10 January 2015 were retrieved from the system. Technical alerts occurred for each injection event (such as system disarm due to technical failure, disarm due to operator's stop, incomplete filling of patient data fields, or excessively high injection pressure), as well as interoperability issues related to data sending and receiving to/from the RIS/PACS were also recorded. During the testing period, the CM monitoring system generated a total of 8609 reports, of which 7629 relative to successful injection events (88.6%). 331 alerts were generated, of which 40 resulted in injection interruption and 291 in CM flow rate limitation due to excessively high injection pressure (&gt;325psi). Average CM volume and flow rate were 93.73±17.58mL and 3.53±0.89mL/s, and contrast injection pressure ranged between 5 and 167psi. A statistically significant correlation was found between iodine concentration and peak IDR (rs=0.2744, p&lt;0.0001), as well as between iodine concentration and iodine dose (rs=0.3862, p&lt;0.0001) for all CT studies. Automated contrast management systems can provide a full report of contrast use with the possibility to systematically compare different contrast injection protocols, minimize errors, and optimize organ-specific contrast enhancement for any given patient and clinical application. This can be useful to improve and harmonize the quality and consistency of contrast CT procedures within the same radiological department and across the hospital, as well as to monitor potential adverse events and overall costs

A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study.

Nowadays, given the technological advance in CT imaging and increasing heterogeneity in characteristics of CT scanners, a number of CT scanners with different manufacturers/technologies are often installed in a hospital centre and used by various departments. In this phantom study, a comprehensive assessment of image quality of 5 scanners (from 3 manufacturers and with different models) for head CT imaging, as clinically used at a single hospital centre, was hence carried out. Helical and/or sequential acquisitions of the Catphan-504 phantom were performed, using the scanning protocols (CTDIvol range: 54.7-57.5 mGy) employed by the staff of various Radiology/Neuroradiology departments of our institution for routine head examinations. CT image quality for each scanner/acquisition protocol was assessed through noise level, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), low contrast detectability (LCD) and non-uniformity index analyses. Noise values ranged from 3.5 HU to 5.7 HU across scanners/acquisition protocols. NPS curves differed in terms of peak position (range: 0.21-0.30 mm-1). A substantial variation of CNR values with scanner/acquisition protocol was observed for different contrast inserts. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean value) of CNR values across scanners/acquisition protocols was 18.3%, 31.4%, 34.2%, 30.4% and 30% for teflon, delrin, LDPE, polystyrene and acrylic insert, respectively. An appreciable difference in MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols was revealed, with a coefficient of variation of f50%/f10% of MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols of 10.1%/7.4%. A relevant difference in LCD performance of different scanners/acquisition protocols was found. The range of contrast threshold for a typical object size of 3 mm was 3.7-5.8 HU. Moreover, appreciable differences in terms of NUI values (range: 4.1%-8.3%) were found. The analysis of several quality indices showed a non-negligible variability in head CT imaging capabilities across different scanners/acquisition protocols. This highlights the importance of a physical in-depth characterization of image quality for each CT scanner as clinically used, in order to optimize CT imaging procedures