Excessive volume of hydrogel injectates may compromise the efficacy for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction

\u3cp\u3eBiomaterial injectates are promising as a therapy for myocardial infarction to inhibit the adverse ventricular remodeling. The current study explored interrelated effects of injectate volume and infarct size on treatment efficacy. A finite element model of a rat heart was utilized to represent ischemic infarcts of 10%, 20%, and 38% of left ventricular wall volume and polyethylene glycol hydrogel injectates of 25%, 50%, and 75% of the infarct volume. Ejection fraction was 49.7% in the healthy left ventricle and 44.9%, 46.4%, 47.4%, and 47.3% in the untreated 10% infarct and treated with 25%, 50%, and 75% injectate, respectively. Maximum end-systolic infarct fiber stress was 41.6, 53.4, 44.7, 44.0, and 45.3 kPa in the healthy heart, the untreated 10% infarct, and when treated with the three injectate volumes, respectively. Treating the 10% and 38% infarcts with the 25% injectate volume reduced the maximum end-systolic fiber stress by 16.3% and 34.7% and the associated strain by 30.2% and 9.8%, respectively. The results indicate the existence of a threshold for injectate volume above which efficacy does not further increase but may decrease. The efficacy of an injectate in reducing infarct stress and strain changes with infarct size.\u3c/p\u3

The Radical Welcome Engagement Restoration Model and Assessment Tool for Community-Engaged Partnerships.

People experiencing addiction, houselessness, or who have a history of incarceration have worse health outcomes compared with the general population. This is due, in part, to practices and policies of historically White institutions that exclude the voices, perspectives, and contributions of communities of color in leadership, socio-economic development, and decision-making that matters for their wellbeing. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches hold promise for addressing health inequities. However, full engagement of people harmed by systemic injustices in CBPR partnerships is challenging due to inequities in power and access to resources. We describe how an Allentown-based CBPR partnership-the Health Equity Activation Research Team of clinicians, researchers, and persons with histories of incarceration, addiction, and houselessness-uses the Radical Welcome Engagement Restoration Model (RWERM) to facilitate full engagement by all partners. Data were collected through participatory ethnography, focus groups, and individual interviews. Analyses were performed using deductive coding in a series of iterative meaning-making processes that involved all partners. Findings highlighted six defining phases of the radical welcome framework: (a) passionate invitation, (b) radical welcome, (c) authentic sense of belonging, (d) co-creation of roles, (e) prioritization of issues, and (f) individual and collective action. A guide to assessing progression across these phases, as well as a 32-item radical welcome instrument to help CBPR partners anticipate and overcome challenges to engagement are introduced and discussed