Percutaneous coronary intervention in asians- are there differences in clinical outcome?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ethnic differences in clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been reported. Data within different Asian subpopulations is scarce. We aim to explore the differences in clinical profile and outcome between Chinese, Malay and Indian Asian patients who undergo PCI for coronary artery disease (CAD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing PCI from January 2002 to December 2007 at a tertiary care center was analyzed. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization and all-cause death at six months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>7889 patients underwent PCI; 7544 (96%) patients completed follow-up and were included in the analysis (79% males with mean age of 59 years ± 11). There were 5130 (68%) Chinese, 1056 (14%) Malays and 1001 (13.3%) Indian patients. The remaining 357 (4.7%) patients from other minority ethnic groups were excluded from the analysis. The primary end-point occurred in 684 (9.1%) patients at six months. Indians had the highest rates of six month MACE compared to Chinese and Malays (Indians 12% vs. Chinese 8.2% vs. Malays 10.7%; OR 1.55 95%CI 1.24-1.93, p < 0.001). This was contributed by increased rates of MI (Indians 1.9% vs. Chinese 0.9% vs. Malays 1.3%; OR 4.49 95%CI 1.91-10.56 p = 0.001), repeat revascularization (Indians 6.5% vs. Chinese 4.1% vs. Malays 5.1%; OR 1.64 95%CI 1.22-2.21 p = 0.0012) and death (Indians 11.4% vs. Chinese 7.6% vs. Malays 9.9%; OR 1.65 95%CI 1.23-2.20 p = 0.001) amongst Indian patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These data indicate that ethnic variations in clinical outcome exist following PCI. In particular, Indian patients have higher six month event rates compared to Chinese and Malays. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms behind these variations.</p

Measurement of the Bottom-Strange Meson Mixing Phase in the Full CDF Data Set

We report a measurement of the bottom-strange meson mixing phase \beta_s using the time evolution of B0_s -> J/\psi (->\mu+\mu-) \phi (-> K+ K-) decays in which the quark-flavor content of the bottom-strange meson is identified at production. This measurement uses the full data set of proton-antiproton collisions at sqrt(s)= 1.96 TeV collected by the Collider Detector experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron, corresponding to 9.6 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. We report confidence regions in the two-dimensional space of \beta_s and the B0_s decay-width difference \Delta\Gamma_s, and measure \beta_s in [-\pi/2, -1.51] U [-0.06, 0.30] U [1.26, \pi/2] at the 68% confidence level, in agreement with the standard model expectation. Assuming the standard model value of \beta_s, we also determine \Delta\Gamma_s = 0.068 +- 0.026 (stat) +- 0.009 (syst) ps-1 and the mean B0_s lifetime, \tau_s = 1.528 +- 0.019 (stat) +- 0.009 (syst) ps, which are consistent and competitive with determinations by other experiments.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures, Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 171802 (2012

The insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism in the Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene and cancer risk: a meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism in the <it>Angiotensin-converting enzyme </it>(<it>ACE</it>) gene has been implicated in susceptibility to cancer, but a large number of studies have reported inconclusive results. The aim of this study is to assess the association between the I/D polymorphism in the <it>ACE </it>gene and cancer risk by meta-analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search was performed in Pubmed database, Embase database, Chinese Biomedical (CBM) database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database and Weipu database, covering all studies until August 31, 2010. Statistical analysis was performed by using Revman4.2 and STATA 10.0.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 25 case-control studies comprising 3914 cancer patients and 11391 controls were identified. No significant association was found between the I/D polymorphism and over all cancer risks (OR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.73-1.06, P = 0.17 for DD+DI vs. II). In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, no significant association was found among Asians and Europeans for the comparison of DD+DI vs. II. In the subgroup analysis by cancer types, no significant associations were found among lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, gastric cancer for the comparison of DD+DI vs. II. Results from other comparative genetic models also indicated the lack of associations between this polymorphism and cancer risks.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This meta-analysis suggested that the <it>ACE </it>D/I polymorphism might not contribute to the risk of cancer.</p

Root Canal Anatomy of Maxillary and Mandibular Teeth

It is a common knowledge that a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the internal anatomy of teeth is imperative to ensure successful root canal treatment. The significance of canal anatomy has been emphasized by studies demonstrating that variations in canal geometry before cleaning, shaping, and obturation procedures had a greater effect on the outcome than the techniques themselves. In recent years, significant technological advances for imaging teeth, such as CBCT and micro-CT, respectively, have been introduced. Their noninvasive nature allows to perform in vivo anatomical studies using large populations to address the influence of several variables such as ethnicity, aging, gender, and others, on the root canal anatomy, as well as to evaluate, quantitatively and/or qualitatively, specific and fine anatomical features of a tooth group. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the morphological aspects of the root canal anatomy published in the literature of all groups of teeth and illustrate with three-dimensional images acquired from micro-CT technology.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Parametric exploration of the liver by magnetic resonance methods

MRI, as a completely noninvasive technique, can provide quantitative assessment of perfusion, diffusion, viscoelasticity and metabolism, yielding diverse information about liver function. Furthermore, pathological accumulations of iron and lipids can be quantified. Perfusion MRI with various contrast agents is commonly used for the detection and characterization of focal liver disease and the quantification of blood flow parameters. An extended new application is the evaluation of the therapeutic effect of antiangiogenic drugs on liver tumours. Novel, but already widespread, is a histologically validated relaxometry method using five gradient echo sequences for quantifying liver iron content elevation, a measure of inflammation, liver disease and cancer. Because of the high perfusion fraction in the liver, the apparent diffusion coefficients strongly depend on the gradient factors used in diffusion-weighted MRI. While complicating analysis, this offers the opportunity to study perfusion without contrast injection. Another novel method, MR elastography, has already been established as the only technique able to stage fibrosis or diagnose mild disease. Liver fat content is accurately determined with multivoxel MR spectroscopy (MRS) or by faster MRI methods that are, despite their widespread use, prone to systematic error. Focal liver disease characterisation will be of great benefit once multivoxel methods with fat suppression are implemented in proton MRS, in particular on high-field MR systems providing gains in signal-to-noise ratio and spectral resolution

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

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