Effects on the buoyant density of rabbit platelets of ADP and agents that increase the concentration of cyclic AMP

Rabbit platelets were aggregated by adenosine diphosphate (ADP), allowed to deaggregate and then separated into density subpopulations by centrifugation through discontinuous Stractan density gradients. Although ADP causes little or no release of the contents of the amine storage granules of rabbit platelets, ADP caused a decrease in platelet density as compared with control platelets subjected to the same procedures except for exposure to ADP. The density change persisted for at least four hours. The apparent size of platelets stimulated with ADP increased initially, but returned to control values during a one-hour period. A similar decrease in platelet density was observed with an albumin density gradient. Under conditions in which aggregation did not occur in response to ADP with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in the medium, little or no decrease in platelet density was observed. Agglutination with polylysine did not change platelet density. Thus, not only agents such as thrombin and plasmin that cause the release of the contents of the platelet granules decrease platelet density, but ADP also has this effect. Platelets would be exposed to all of these stimuli during thromboembolic processes, and their effect on platelets may account for the decrease in platelet density observed previously in experiments with rabbits with indwelling aortic catheters. Agents that increase the concentration of cyclic AMP (cAMP) in platelets (PGE1, adenosine, dibutyryl cAMP, forskolin, and papaverine) also decreased platelet density. This effect persisted when the platelets were washed and resuspended in fresh medium and was also demonstrable in plasma. Platelet size was gradually increased by prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) which maintains platelets in a disc shape and does not cause the release of granule contents, indicating that the decrease in platelet density caused by PGE1 may be attributable to platelet swelling.     

Digital imaging of the chest

During the past several years, image acquisition in nuclear medicine, computed tomography, ultrasonography, subtraction angiography, and magnetic resonance has been by digitization. Despite these advances, research in the development of digital imaging in conventional radiography has lagged behind. Although studies with a variety of digital techniques have been carried out on several fronts, we still do not possess a method that has captured the imagination of the majority of radiologists and other physicians to a point where it could replace conventional screen-film imaging. This article reviews the current status and general principles of the technology, focusing on the four digital radiographic techniques that have shown the greatest promise - film digitization, an image intensifier - based system, photostimulable phosphor plates, and a scanned projection system. The physical aspects of each of the four systems and the clinical results that have been reported to date, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each system, are presented.     

Results of randomized controlled trials of low-versus high-osmolality contrast media

The authors reviewed 100 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in humans to compare safety or efficacy of new low-osmolality contrast media (LOM) with that of high-osmolality contrast media (HOM). Findings of the 43 RCTs judged to be of the highest quality suggest that the efficacy of LOM in imaging is equal or superior to that of HOM for all routes of administration. Heat sensation occurred less often with LOM for all routes and pain occurred less often with LOM for intraarterial routes. No differences were seen in nephrotoxicity or in frequency of nausea, vomiting, urticaria, bronchospasm, laboratory test abnormalities, or neurologic events. Greater cardiovascular changes were seen with HOM, including increased or decreased heart rate, increased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, decreased systolic pressure, and QT prolongation, depending on route of administration. To demonstrate whether a reduction in clinically significant adverse outcomes truly occurs with LOM, trials will need to enlist larger numbers of patients and employ appropriate outcome measures. Future trials should stratify patients according to their risk of adverse reactions to provide better information about benefits of LOM in low- versus high-risk patients.