Interventional suite and equipment management: cradle to grave

The acquisition process for interventional equipment and the care that this equipment receives constitute a comprehensive quality improvement program. This program strives to (a) achieve the production of good image quality that meets clinical needs, (b) reduce radiation doses to the patient and personnel to their lowest possible levels, and (c) provide overall good patient care at reduced cost. Interventional imaging equipment is only as effective and efficient as its supporting facility. The acquisition process of interventional equipment and the development of its environment demand a clinical project leader who can effectively coordinate the efforts of the many professionals who must communicate and work effectively on this type of project. The clinical project leader needs to understand (a) clinical needs of the end users, (b) how to justify the cost of the project, (c) the technical needs of the imaging and all associated equipment, (d) building and construction limitations, (e) how to effectively read construction drawings, and (f) how to negotiate and contract the imaging equipment from the appropriate vendor. After the initial commissioning of the equipment, it must not be forgotten. The capabilities designed into the imaging device can be properly utilized only by well-trained operators and staff who were initially properly trained and receive ongoing training concerning the latest clinical techniques throughout the equipment’s lifetime. A comprehensive, ongoing maintenance and repair program is paramount to reducing costly downtime of the imaging device. A planned periodic maintenance program can identify and eliminate problems with the imaging device before these problems negatively impact patient care

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Differential and shared genetic effects on kidney function between diabetic and non-diabetic individuals

A large-scale GWAS provides insight on diabetes-dependent genetic effects on the glomerular filtration rate, a common metric to monitor kidney health in disease.Reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can progress to kidney failure. Risk factors include genetics and diabetes mellitus (DM), but little is known about their interaction. We conducted genome-wide association meta-analyses for estimated GFR based on serum creatinine (eGFR), separately for individuals with or without DM (nDM = 178,691, nnoDM = 1,296,113). Our genome-wide searches identified (i) seven eGFR loci with significant DM/noDM-difference, (ii) four additional novel loci with suggestive difference and (iii) 28 further novel loci (including CUBN) by allowing for potential difference. GWAS on eGFR among DM individuals identified 2 known and 27 potentially responsible loci for diabetic kidney disease. Gene prioritization highlighted 18 genes that may inform reno-protective drug development. We highlight the existence of DM-only and noDM-only effects, which can inform about the target group, if respective genes are advanced as drug targets. Largely shared effects suggest that most drug interventions to alter eGFR should be effective in DM and noDM.</p