Esketamine counters opioid-induced respiratory depression

Perioperative Medicine: Efficacy, Safety and Outcom

Multicolour correlative imaging using phosphor probes

Correlative light and electron microscopy exploits the advantages of optical methods, such as multicolour probes and their use in hydrated live biological samples, to locate functional units, which are then correlated with structural details that can be revealed by the superior resolution of electron microscopes. One difficulty is locating the area imaged by the electron beam in the much larger optical field of view. Multifunctional probes that can be imaged in both modalities and thus register the two images are required. Phosphor materials give cathodoluminescence (CL) optical emissions under electron excitation. Lanthanum phosphate containing thulium or terbium or europium emits narrow bands in the blue, green and red regions of the CL spectrum; they may be synthesised with very uniform-sized crystals in the 10- to 50-nm range. Such crystals can be imaged by CL in the electron microscope, at resolutions limited by the particle size, and with colour discrimination to identify different probes. These materials also give emissions in the optical microscope, by multiphoton excitation. They have been deposited on the surface of glioblastoma cells and imaged by CL. Gadolinium oxysulphide doped with terbium emits green photons by either ultraviolet or electron excitation. Sixty-nanometre crystals of this phosphor have been imaged in the atmospheric scanning electron microscope (JEOL ClairScope). This probe and microscope combination allow correlative imaging in hydrated samples. Phosphor probes should prove to be very useful in correlative light and electron microscopy, as fiducial markers to assist in image registration, and in high/super resolution imaging studies

The potential of bioorthogonal chemistry for correlative light and electron microscopy: a call to arms

Bio-organic Synthesi

18q loss of heterozygosity in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer is correlated with CpG island methylator phenotype-negative (CIMP-0) and inversely with CIMP-low and CIMP-high

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background:</p> <p>The CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) with widespread promoter methylation is a distinct epigenetic phenotype in colorectal cancer, associated with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-high) and <it>BRAF </it>mutations. 18q loss of heterozygosity (LOH) commonly present in colorectal cancer with chromosomal instability (CIN) is associated with global hypomethylation in tumor cell. A recent study has shown an inverse correlation between CIN and CIMP (determined by MINTs, p16, p14 and <it>MLH1 </it>methylation) in colorectal cancer. However, no study has examined 18q LOH in relation to CIMP-high, CIMP-low (less extensive promoter methylation) and CIMP-0 (CIMP-negative), determined by quantitative DNA methylation analysis.</p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>Utilizing MethyLight technology (real-time PCR), we quantified DNA methylation in 8 CIMP-specific promoters {<it>CACNA1G</it>, <it>CDKN2A </it>(p16), <it>CRABP1, IGF2</it>, <it>MLH1, NEUROG1, RUNX3 </it>and <it>SOCS1</it>} in 758 non-MSI-high colorectal cancers obtained from two large prospective cohorts. Using four 18q microsatellite markers (D18S55, D18S56, D18S67 and D18S487) and stringent criteria for 18q LOH, we selected 374 tumors (236 LOH-positive tumors with ≥ 2 markers showing LOH; and 138 LOH-negative tumors with ≥ 3 informative markers and no LOH).</p> <p>Results:</p> <p>CIMP-0 (0/8 methylated promoters) was significantly more common in 18q LOH-positive tumors (59% = 139/236, p = 0.002) than 18q LOH-negative tumors (44% = 61/138), while CIMP-low/high (1/8–8/8 methylated promoters) was significantly more common (56%) in 18q LOH-negative tumors than 18q LOH-positive tumors (41%). These relations persisted after stratification by sex, location, or the status of MSI, p53 expression (by immunohistochemistry), or <it>KRAS/BRAF </it>mutation.</p> <p>Conclusion:</p> <p>18q LOH is correlated positively with CIMP-0 and inversely with CIMP-low and CIMP-high. Our findings provide supporting evidence for relationship between CIMP-0 and 18q LOH as well as a molecular difference between CIMP-0 and CIMP-low in colorectal cancer.</p

Low expression of gamma-glutamyl hydrolase mRNA in primary colorectal cancer with the CpG island methylator phenotype

The CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP+) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is defined as concomitant and frequent hypermethylation of CpG islands within gene promoter regions. We previously demonstrated that CIMP+ was associated with elevated concentrations of folate intermediates in tumour tissues. In the present study, we investigated whether CIMP+ was associated with a specific mRNA expression pattern for folate- and nucleotide-metabolising enzymes. An exploratory study was conducted on 114 CRC samples from Australia. mRNA levels for 17 genes involved in folate and nucleotide metabolism were measured by real-time RT-PCR. CIMP+ was determined by real-time methylation-specific PCR and compared to mRNA expression. Candidate genes showing association with CIMP+ were further investigated in a replication cohort of 150 CRC samples from Japan. In the exploratory study, low expression of γ-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH) was strongly associated with CIMP+ and CIMP+-related clinicopathological and molecular features. Trends for inverse association between GGH expression and the concentration of folate intermediates were also observed. Analysis of the replication cohort confirmed that GGH expression was significantly lower in CIMP+ CRC. Promoter hypermethylation of GGH was observed in only 5.6% (1 out of 18) CIMP+ tumours and could not account for the low expression level of this gene. CIMP+ CRC is associated with low expression of GGH, suggesting involvement of the folate pathway in the development and/or progression of this phenotype. Further studies of folate metabolism in CIMP+ CRC may help to elucidate the aetiology of these tumours and to predict their response to anti-folates and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin.K. Kawakami, A. Ooyama, A. Ruszkiewicz, M. Jin, G. Watanabe, J. Moore, T. Oka, B. Iacopetta and T. Minamot

DNA Methylation Profiles of Primary Colorectal Carcinoma and Matched Liver Metastasis

BACKGROUND: The contribution of DNA methylation to the metastatic process in colorectal cancers (CRCs) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated the methylation status of 13 genes (MINT1, MINT2, MINT31, MLH1, p16, p14, TIMP3, CDH1, CDH13, THBS1, MGMT, HPP1 and ERα) by bisulfite-pyrosequencing in 79 CRCs comprising 36 CRCs without liver metastasis and 43 CRCs with liver metastasis, including 16 paired primary CRCs and liver metastasis. We also performed methylated CpG island amplification microarrays (MCAM) in three paired primary and metastatic cancers. RESULTS: Methylation of p14, TIMP3 and HPP1 in primary CRCs progressively decreased from absence to presence of liver metastasis (13.1% vs. 4.3%; 14.8% vs. 3.7%; 43.9% vs. 35.8%, respectively) (P<.05). When paired primary and metastatic tumors were compared, only MGMT methylation was significantly higher in metastatic cancers (27.4% vs. 13.4%, P = .013), and this difference was due to an increase in methylation density rather than frequency in the majority of cases. MCAM showed an average 7.4% increase in DNA methylated genes in the metastatic samples. The numbers of differentially hypermethylated genes in the liver metastases increased with increasing time between resection of the primary and resection of the liver metastasis. Bisulfite-pyrosequencing validation in 12 paired samples showed that most of these increases were not conserved, and could be explained by differences in methylation density rather than frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Most DNA methylation differences between primary CRCs and matched liver metastasis are due to random variation and an increase in DNA methylation density rather than de-novo inactivation and silencing. Thus, DNA methylation changes occur for the most part before progression to liver metastasis

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

Behavior in behavioral strategy : capturing, measuring, analyzing

Measuring behavior requires research methods that can capture observed outcomes and expose underlying processes and mechanisms. In this chapter, we present a toolbox of instruments and techniques we designed experimental tasks to simulate decision environments and capture behavior. We deployed protocol analysis and text analysis to examine the underlying cognitive processes. In combination, these can simultaneously grasp antecedents, outcomes, processes, and mechanisms. We applied them to collect rich behavioral data on two key topics in strategic management: the exploration–exploitation trade-off and strategic risk-taking. This mix of methods is particularly useful in describing actual behavior as it is, not as it should be, replacing assumptions with data and offering a finer-grained perspective of strategic decision-making

Effect of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With New York Heart Association Functional Class IV Heart Failure

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is considered a class I indication in treatment of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III and IV heart failure. However, only small numbers of patients in large clinical trials have been in NYHA functional class IV. Therefore, little is known about the effects of CRT in this group. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of CRT in patients with NYHA functional class IV heart failure. Of all patients referred for CRT implantation, 61 patients with symptoms according to NYHA functional class IV were included. All patients were evaluated before implantation and at 6-month follow-up for clinical changes according to the clinical composite score and changes in left ventricular (LV) volumes and function. In addition, survival was evaluated during long-term follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, 9 patients (15%) had died and 2 patients (3%) were admitted for worsening heart failure. The remaining 39 patients (64%) showed improvement according to the clinical composite score. Decreases in LV end-systolic volume (from 167 +/- 88 to 147 +/- 93 ml, p = 0.009) and LV end-diastolic volume (from 211 +/- 100 to 199 +/- 113 ml, p = 0.135) were observed, as was a significant increase in LV ejection fraction (from 22 +/- 8% to 28 +/- 9%, p <0.001). During a mean follow-up of 30 +/- 26 months, 36 patients (59%) died, 27 (75%) from worsening heart failure. Respective 1- and 2-year mortality rates were 25% and 38%. In conclusion, CRT decreases LV volumes and improves cardiac function in patients with NYHA functional class IV heart failure. Nevertheless, (heart failure) mortality remains high in these patients. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1146-1151)Cardiac Dysfunction and Arrhythmia