Diagnostic performance of point-of-use ultrasound of resuscitation outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 3265 patients

Background: Echocardiography in the setting of resuscitation can provide information as to the cause of the cardiac arrest, as well as indicators of futility. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the value of point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) in the assessment of survival for adult patients with cardiac arrest. Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane have been searched from databases inception until March 2nd 2021. The search was limited to adult patients with cardiac arrest and without publication dates or country restrictions. Papers were chosen if they met the required criteria relating to the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of this diagnostic technique concerning resuscitation outcomes. Results: This systematic review identified 20 studies. Overall, for survival to hospital discharge, PoCUS was 6.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7% to 8.0%) and 2.1% specific (95% CI 0.8–4.2%). PoCUS sensitivity and specificity for return of spontaneous circulation were 23.8% (95% CI 21.4–26.4%) and 50.7% (95% CI 45.8–55.7%) respectively, and for survival to admission 13.8% (95% CI 12.2–15.5%) and 20.1% (95% CI 16.2–24.3%), respectively. Conclusions: The results do not allow unambiguous recommendation of PoCUS as a predictor of resuscitation outcomes and further studies based on a large number of patients with full standardization of operators, their training and procedures performed were necessary

Automatic Classification of Cardiac Disease State from Medical Image Data

This thesis presents work towards a comprehensive set of methods to extract quantitative shape features and infarct information from cardiac magnetic resonance imaging data to enable classification of a heart disease state in terms of arrhythmia occurrence. The aim of the first part of this work is to process the images and convert the output to a computational domain usable for analysis / modelling. A comprehensive pipeline is constructed, to go from late gadolinium enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance images to numerical bi-ventricle meshes. The goal is to utilize the tools that are available open-source, in order to encourage the use by other researchers. A method of using mathematical currents to describe the meshes is employed to define the population mean shape and patient-specific shape characteristics. The resulting features are decomposed using linear and non-linear algorithms to extract the relevant information. The second part of this thesis concerns the application of machine learning algorithms to the set of subjects pre-processed with the pipeline. The main objective is to reduce the high variance imposed by the small size of available data. The unsupervised and supervised algorithms are used to search for patterns in the data and classify the myocardial infarction patients according to the presence of ventricular fibrillation during the first ST-elevation myocardial infarction to provide valuable insights into the pathophysiology. The single classifiers are combined using a variety of ensemble methods. Finally, a multiple kernel method which integrates multiple modalities is presented. This method takes advantage of the infarct information embedded in the late gadolinium enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance images. The classification of myocardial infarction patients used in the thesis is an example problem of using machine learning for clinical support. The techniques presented in this thesis can be used to analyze and classify any heart disease manifesting with ventricular remodelling and / or infarct development

The Effect of Risk Factors on the Levels of Chemical Elements in the Tibial Plateau of Patients with Osteoarthritis following Knee Surgery

The aim of this study was to evaluate the aforementioned chemical elements in tibial plateau samples obtained during knee arthroplasty. The gender-specific analysis of chemical element levels in the bone samples revealed that there were statistically significant differences in the concentration of Pb and Se/Pb ratio. The contents of elements in the tibial plateau in the patients with osteoarthritis (OA) can be arranged in the following descending order: F− > K > Zn > Fe > Sr > Pb > Mn > Se > Cd > THg. We observed statistical significant effects of environmental factors including smoking, seafood diet, and geographical distribution on the levels of the elements in tibial bone. Significant positive correlation coefficients were found for the relationships K-Cd, Zn-Sr, Zn-F−, THg-Pb, Pb-Cd, Se-Se/Pb, Se-Se/Cd, Se/Pb-Se/Cd, Pb-Cd/Ca, Cd-Cd/Ca, and F−-F−/Ca·1000. Significant negative correlations were found for the relationships THg-Se/Pb, Pb-Se/Pb, Cd-Se/Pb, K-Se/Cd, Pb-Se/Cd, Cd-Se/Cd, THg-Se/THg, Pb-Se/THg, Se-Pb/Cd, Zn-Cd/Ca, and Se/Cd-Cd/Ca. The results reported here may provide a basis for establishing reference values for the tibial plateau in patients with OA who had undergone knee replacement surgery. The concentrations of elements in the bone with OA were determined by age, presence of implants, smoking, fish and seafood diet, and sport activity

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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