Anomalous Origin of the Left Coronary Artery from the Pulmonary Artery: Diagnoses and Surgical Results in 12 Pediatric Patients

Anomalous origin of the left coronary artery from the pulmonary artery (ALCAPA) is a rare congenital condition. It responds well to early diagnosis and treatment, but otherwise the prognosis is poor. We present our case series of 12 patients (mean age, 2 ± 2.58 yr; age range, 2 mo–8 yr), emphasizing the diagnostic process and discussing our surgical results. The diagnosis of ALCAPA should be suspected in infants who have dilated cardiomyopathy with electrocardiographic changes that suggest ischemia, and in older children who have isolated mitral regurgitation. When clinical suspicion is high, the results of 2-dimensional echocardiography combined with color-flow Doppler studies in expert hands can establish the diagnosis, thus avoiding angiography in critically ill infants. The treatment of choice in our patients was transfer and reimplantation of the left coronary artery onto the ascending aorta. There were 2 deaths: both were infants in extremis who underwent emergency surgery. An older child with severe ventricular dysfunction was given mechanical ventricular assistance and then heart transplantation. As of this report, all 10 survivors remained well and asymptomatic.     

Longitudinal evaluation of a hearing protector fit training program

Objective:The present study evaluates a training program for fitting different hearing protection devices (HPDs) based on personal attenuation rating (PAR) before, immediately after, and six months after training.Methods:A total of 67 workers from a public university in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, were invited to participate in the measurement of PARs for foam and silicone protectors through the 3M™ E-A-Rfit Validation System. Two evaluations were performed for each protector at each sampling date: one after reading printed material (the package instructions) and another after being trained by an audiologist. The same procedures were repeated after six months. The final sample consisted of 30 individuals. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.Results:Larger PAR values were observed after training by the audiologist, and smaller values were observed after six months. Then, after re-training, the values increased again. There were no statistically significant differences in PAR among the HPDs tested. Even after the two training sessions, 23 to 27% of the subjects did not obtain adequate PAR values.Conclusion:These findings emphasize the need for continual worker training in the correct fit of earplug HPDs and the importance of longitudinal PAR monitoring. In addition, some workers, despite the training provided, did not adapt to the HPDs used. Therefore, it is essential that other protection methods and/or other HPD types are made available to these individuals.Key words: Hearing, noise-induced hearing loss, occupational health, personal protective equipment, hearing protection devices     

Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I² = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I² = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.