4 research outputs found

    Palladium-Catalyzed C–H Arylation of Indoles at the C7 Position

    No full text
    In the past decade, direct C–H arylation of indoles has been developed with high selectivity at the C2 and C3 positions via transition-metal-catalyzed cross-coupling reactions. Here we show that C–H activation can be directed to the C7 position with high selectivity in Pd-catalyzed coupling of indoles with arylboronic acids. The key to this high regio­selectivity is the appropriate choice of a phosphinoyl directing group and a pyridine-type ligand in the presence of Pd­(OAc)<sub>2</sub> catalyst. This previously elusive transformation should provide insight for the design of other cross-couplings as well

    Copper-Catalyzed <i>N</i>‑Benzoylation of Amines via Aerobic C–C Bond Cleavage

    No full text
    A general copper/air catalytic system for selectively oxidative C–C bond cleavage of 1,2-diarylethan-1-one has been developed, giving aromatic aldehydes and <i>N</i>-benzoylation products of various amines in moderate to excellent yields. This research provides an alternative approach for the <i>N</i>-benzoylation of amine in mild and neutral conditions

    Cu-Catalyzed Direct C6-Arylation of Indoles

    No full text
    The first example of direct and site-selective arylation of indoles at the C6 position has been reported. The key to this high regioselectivity is the appropriate choice of the N–P­(O)<sup><i>t</i></sup>Bu<sub>2</sub> directing group and the use of diaryliodonium triflate salts as the coupling partners in the presence of catalytic CuO. The protocol is distinguished by mild reaction system that avoids ligand and additives, exhibiting wide scope of indole and arene coupling components without compromising its efficiency and scalability, thus representing a significant advancement in the implementation of regioselective direct arylation of indoles

    Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    No full text
    <div><p>Background</p><p>Over the past several decades, the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) has gradually become a preferred option of pituitary adenomas surgery because of its minimal invasiveness and high efficiency. However, some EETA operations were performed through one nostril (mononostril), while other EETA operations were performed through both nostrils (binostril). Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the pros and cons of these two methods in an attempted to confirm which method is more effective.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We executed a systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science and Medline (1992–2015). The language is limited to English and all studies should meet the inclusion criteria. Comparisons were made for postoperative outcomes, complications, and other relevant parameters between the mononostril and the binostril group. Statistical analyses of categorical variables were undertaken by the use of Stata 12.0 and SPASS 19.0.</p><p>Results</p><p>Thirty studies, involving 4805 patients, were included. The two groups had similar results in GTR rate (included GTR rate of macroadenomas), hormonal remission rate, improvement in visual function, postoperative CSF leak, permanent diabetes insipidus, meningitis, and sinusitis. The binostril group had less temporary diabetes insipidus (2.9% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.022), less anterior pituitary insufficiency (2.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.000) and few hospitalization days (3.2 days vs. 4.4 days, p<0.05) than the mononostril group. However, the mononostril group had less rate of epistaxis (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.008) than the binostril group. For invasive macroadenomas, the binostril group seem to demonstrate a tendency towards better outcomes though there was no subgroup analysis between the two groups.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The binostril approach had less temporary diabetes insipidus, anterior pituitary insufficiency, and a shorter length of hospital stay, although they demonstrated a higher rate of epistaxis than the mononstril group. Additionally, the binostril group seemed to suggest a tendency towards better outcomes for invasive macroadenomas.</p></div
    corecore