MR-safety in clinical practice at 7T: Evaluation of a multistep screening process in 1819 subjects

IntroductionMR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure.MethodsSubjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety incidents.ResultsPassive or active implants (n = 315) were identified in a screening form and/or an additional documented interview in 305 subjects. Additional information not previously self-reported by the subject, regarding implants necessitating safety decisions performed by the staff was revealed in the documented interview in 102 subjects (106 items). In total, the 7T MR safety committee documented a decision in 36 (2%) of the included subjects. All of these subjects were finally cleared for scanning.ConclusionA multi-step screening process allows a thorough MR screening of subjects, avoiding safety incidents. Different steps in the process allow awareness to rise and items to be detected that were missed in earlier steps.Implications for practiceSafety questions posed at a single timepoint during an MR screening process might not reveal all safety risks. Repetition and rephrasing of screening questions leads to increased detection of safety risks. This could be effectively mitigated by a multi-step screening process. A multi-disciplinary safety committee is efficient at short notice responding to unexpected safety issues.     

Effect of iron deficiency without anaemia on days alive and out of hospital in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery

Comprehensive evidence regarding the treatment of non-anaemic iron deficiency in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery is lacking. This study aimed to investigate the association between non-anaemic iron deficiency and postoperative outcomes in these patients. We retrospectively analysed 321 patients of which 180 (56%) had iron deficiency (defined as serum ferritin < 100 ng.ml^-1 or < 300 ng.ml^-1 with transferrin saturation < 20%). While the iron-deficient group had lower pre-operative haemoglobin levels than the non-iron deficient group (median (IQR [range]) 134 (127–141 [120–172]) g.l^-1, 143 (133–150 [120–179]) g.l^-1, p = 0.001), there was no between-group difference in allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Median (IQR [range]) days alive and out of hospital at postoperative day 90 was 1 day shorter in the iron-deficient group (80 (77–82 [9–85]) days vs. 81 (79–83 [0–85]) days, p = 0.026). In multivariable analysis, only cardiopulmonary bypass duration (p = 0.032) and intra-operative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (p = 0.011) were significantly associated with reduced days alive and out of hospital at postoperative day 90. Iron deficiency did not exert any adverse influence on secondary outcomes except length of hospital stay. Our findings indicate that non-anaemic iron deficiency alone is not associated with adverse effects in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery when it does not translate into an increased risk of allogeneic transfusion.     

全身性遗传疾病对角膜移植排斥的影响

角膜移植为治疗角膜盲的主要手段，而角膜移植排斥则是决定角膜植片存活时间和病人术后视力的关键。角膜得益于其特殊的眼前节“免疫赦免”状态，使得角膜移植能够在众多器官移植中享有极低的排斥率，然而排斥反应发生的风险依然存在。当机体处于遗传物质异常的特殊状态时，宿主将通过宏观调控“免疫赦免”状态对植片的保护作用或受体对移植物排异产生的有害作用，延迟或促进角膜移植排斥反应的发生，进而影响移植物的存活时间和透明度。该文综述与角膜移植排斥相关的多种全身性遗传疾病，总结全身性遗传疾病对角膜移植排斥的影响，浅析其发生的病理生理学机制以及诊疗的特殊性。     

血清Hcy、IGFBP-1联合预测多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的价值

目的探讨血清同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)、胰岛素样生长因子结合蛋白-1(IGFBP-1)联合检测对多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的预测价值。方法选取2018年3月—2020年5月行促排卵治疗并成功临床妊娠的多囊卵巢综合征165例,检测血清Hcy、IGFBP-1水平。根据孕早期自然流产发生情况分为孕早期自然流产组与未自然流产组,比较两组妊娠前一次促排卵后血清Hcy、IGFBP-1水平;多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的危险因素采用多因素Logistic回归分析,并采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析血清Hcy、IGFBP-1水平单项及联合检测对多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的预测价值。结果患者妊娠前一次促排卵后血清Hcy水平低于入院时,血清IGFBP-1水平高于入院时(P<0.01);自然流产组妊娠前一次促排卵后血清Hcy水平高于未自然流产组,血清IGFBP-1水平低于未自然流产组(P<0.01)。孕早期自然流产的发生率为28.48%。年龄≥35岁、多囊卵巢综合征分型、空腹胰岛素水平偏高、空腹血糖水平偏高、血清睾酮水平偏高、血清叶酸水平偏低、妊娠前一次促排卵后血清Hcy水平偏高及血清IGFBP-1水平偏低均是多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的危险因素(P<0.01)。妊娠前一次促排卵后血清Hcy水平联合血清IGFBP-1水平预测多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的敏感度、ROC曲线下面积均高于单独预测(P<0.01)。结论多囊卵巢综合征孕早期自然流产患者血清Hcy水平偏高,IGFBP-1水平偏低,二者均与多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产密切相关,并对多囊卵巢综合征患者孕早期自然流产的发生具有较好的预测价值,联合检测时的预测效能更高。     

Survival analysis of crown margin repair: A retrospective study in a dental school setting

BackgroundRepairing crowns with defective margins is minimally invasive and cost-effective compared with replacement. The authors’ objectives were to examine the survival trajectory of crown margin repairs and to determine the factors associated with survival.MethodsRecords of adult patients from January 2008 through August 2019 were reviewed for crown margin repairs completed at University of Iowa College of Dentistry. A total of 1,002 crown margin repairs were found. Each repair was followed through the end of study in 2019 or until an event (for example, additional repair, endodontic treatment, crown replacement, or extraction). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to study the relationship between selected covariates and time to event.ResultsDuring the follow-up period, 32.8% of the repairs needed reintervention. In the final model, repair material was the only significant covariate. No difference was found between the survival of repairs done with resin-modified glass ionomer and amalgam. However, the repairs done with resin-based composite and conventional glass ionomer were more likely (1.5 times: 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.10 times; and 2 times: 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.73 times, respectively) to need reintervention than were those done with amalgam.ConclusionsMedian survival time of crown margin repairs was 5.1 years (95% CI, 4.48 to 5.72 years). Median survival times for amalgam, resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-based composite, and glass ionomer repair materials were 5.7 years (95% CI, 4.80 to 6.25 years), 5.3 years (95% CI, 4.73 to 6.34 years), 3.2 years (95% CI, 2.51 to 6.19 years), and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.53 to 3.62 years), respectively.Practical ImplicationsWhen considering crown margin repairs, resin-modified glass ionomer or amalgam is preferable to resin-based composite or glass ionomer.