Further evidence of dopamine transporter dysregulation in ADHD: a controlled PET imaging study using altropane.

BACKGROUND: The dopamine transporter (DAT) is known to be a key regulator of dopamine, and recent studies of genetics, treatment, and imaging have highlighted the role of DAT in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The findings of in vivo neuroimaging of DAT in ADHD have been somewhat discrepant, however. METHOD: Dopamine transporter binding was measured using a highly selective ligand (C-11 altropane) and positron emission tomography (PET). The sample consisted of 47 well-characterized, treatment-na?ve, nonsmoking, non-comorbid adults with and without ADHD. Additionally, control subjects had few symptoms of ADHD. RESULTS: Results showed significantly increased DAT binding in the right caudate in adults with ADHD compared with matched control subjects without this disorder. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm abnormal DAT binding in the striatum of adults with ADHD and provide further support that dysregulation of DAT may be an important component of the pathophysiology of ADHD.     

Noninvasive tests for arterial structure, function, and compliance: do they identify risk or diagnose disease?

BACKGROUND: Brachial artery reactivity (BAR), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), and applanation tonometry for evaluation of total arterial compliance may provide information about preclinical vascular disease. We sought to determine whether these tests could be used to identify patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) without being influenced by their ability to identify those at risk for CAD developing. METHODS: We studied 100 patients and compared 3 groups: 35 patients with known CAD; 34 patients with symptoms and risk factors but no CAD identified by stress echocardiography (risk group); and 31 control subjects. BAR and IMT were measured using standard methods, and total arterial compliance was calculated by the pulse-pressure method from simultaneous radial applanation tonometry and pulsed wave Doppler of the left ventricular outflow. Ischemia was identified as a new or worsening wall-motion abnormality induced by stress. RESULTS: In a comparison between the control subjects and patients either at risk for developing CAD or with CAD, the predictors of risk for CAD were: age (P =.01); smoking history (P =.002); hypercholesterolemia (P =.002); and hypertension (P =.004) (model R = 0.82; P =.0001). The independent predictors of CAD were: IMT (P =.001); BAR (P =.04); sex (P =.005); and hypertension (P =.005) (model R = 0.80; P =.0001). CONCLUSION: IMT, BAR, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors appear to identify patients at risk for CAD developing. However, only IMT was significantly different between patients at risk for developing CAD and those with overt CAD.     

Stent fracture: an unusual cause of late restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent placement.

Stent fracture is uncommon but may have consequences including restenosis. To date, stent fractures reported have been related to aggressive post dilation. We describe a case that involves fracture of a stent deployed to nominal pressure. Unlike most stent fractures reported that involve stent struts only our case demonstrated circumferential disruption with complete separation of the stent segments.     

Granulomatous jellyfish dermatitis

The induction of a granulomatous inflammation by jellyfish toxins is rare. More typically, acute toxic and urticarial reactions are seen. An 11-year-old boy developed a striated urticarial erythema on the left cheek after contact with a gelatinous mass while swimming in the sea in Croatia. After initial erosion, a striated induration developed in the area of contact. Histological examination revealed a granulomatous inflammation with some eosinophils. While topical steroid-based antiinflammatory and antibacterial therapy over several weeks was not effective, topical therapy with tacrolimus 0.1% for two two-week treatment periods led to healing of the skin changes with a slight scar. There was no clinical recurrence after 5 month of follow-up.     

Baseline characteristics and treatment preferences of oral surgery patients.

PURPOSE: Patient preferences for treatment choices may depend on patient characteristics. Using standard gamble (SG) and willingness to pay (WTP), this study compares preferences for treatment of mandibular fracture among patients in a low-income urban area. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Surveys of African-American and Hispanic adults receiving treatment at King/Drew Medical Center for either mandibular fracture (n = 98) or third molar removal (n = 105) were used to investigate differences in patient characteristics across treatment groups (third molar vs fracture) and treatment preference (wiring vs surgery). RESULTS: The fracture patients were willing to pay more to restore function without scarring or nerve damage than were the third molar patients. Patients who chose surgery were willing to accept a greater risk of possible nerve damage or scarring than those who chose wiring. Among 15 potential predictors of SG and WTP studied in 4 subgroups defined by actual treatment and treatment preference, significant predictors varied, with associations for education and clinical experience for SG and associations with income and psychosocial predictors for WTP. CONCLUSIONS: SG and WTP capture different domains of health values in patients. There is considerable heterogeneity in relationships among patient characteristics and patient preferences across subgroups defined by actual treatment and treatment preferences.     

Prospective randomized trial of direct endomyocardial implantation of bone marrow cells for treatment of severe coronary artery diseases (PROTECT-CAD trial).

AIMS: Experimental studies have demonstrated that bone marrow (BM) cells can induce angiogenesis in ischaemic myocardium. Recently, several non-randomized pilot studies have also suggested that direct BM cells implantation appears to be feasible and safe in patients with severe coronary artery diseases (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled trial in 28 CAD patients. After BM harvesting, we assigned patients to receive low dose (1 x 10(6) cells/0.1 mL, n = 9), high dose (2 x 10(6) cells/0.1 mL, n = 10) autologous BM cells or control (0.1 mL autologous plasma/injection, n = 9) catheter-based direct endomyocardial injection as guided by electromechanical mapping. Our primary endpoint was the increase in exercise treadmill time and our secondary endpoints were changes in Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and myocardial perfusion and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by single-photon emission computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. A total 422 injections (mean 14.6 +/- 0.7 per patient) were successfully performed at 41 targeted ischaemic regions without any acute complication. Baseline exercise treadmill time was 439 +/- 182 s in controls and 393 +/- 136 s in BM-treated patients, and changed after 6 months to 383 +/- 223s and 464 +/- 196 s [BM treatment effect +0.43 log seconds (+53%), 95% CI 0.11-0.74, P = 0.014]. Compared with placebo injection, BM implantation was associated with a significant increase in LVEF (BM treatment effect +5.4%, 95% CI 0.4-10.3, P = 0.044) and a lower NYHA class (odds ratio for treatment effect 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.73, P = 0.021) after 6 months, but CCS reduced similarly in both groups. We observed no acute or long-term complications, including ventricular arrhythmia, myocardial damage, or development of intramyocardial tumour or calcification associated with BM implantation. CONCLUSION: Direct endomyocardial implantation of autologous BM cells significantly improved exercise time, LVEF, and NYHA functional class in patients with severe CAD who failed conventional therapy.     

Ultrasonic root-end preparation in apical surgery: a prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential benefit of an ultrasonic device in apical surgery on the outcome of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized prospective design was used in a standardized treatment protocol. Patients were allocated to treatment with an ultrasonic device (P-Max Newtron) or treatment with a bur in an otherwise similar protocol. One year after treatment the results were evaluated by 2 oral and maxillofacial surgeons who were blinded for the therapy. RESULTS: Out of a total group of 399 patients who were included in the study, adequate follow-up could be obtained in 290 patients. The overall success rate in the ultrasonic group was 80.5% and in the group treated with a bur 70.9% (P = .056). In molars, the difference in success rate was significant (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The use of an ultrasonic device in apical surgery improved the outcome of treatment. In molars this effect was significant.     

Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The effectiveness of spinal surgery as a treatment option is currently evaluated through the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest improvement considered worthwhile by a patient. The concept of an MCID is offered as the new standard for determining effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in reference to that treatment. PURPOSE: Our goal is to review the various definitions of MCID and the methods available to determine MCID. STUDY DESIGN: The primary means of determining the MCID for a specific treatment are divided into anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Each method is further subdivided and examined in detail. METHODS: The overall limitations of the MCID concept are first identified. The basic assumptions, statistical biases, and shortcomings of each method are examined in detail. RESULTS: Each method of determining the MCID has specific shortcomings. Three general limitations in the accurate determination of an MCID have been identified: the multiplicity of MCID determinations, the loss of the patient's perspective, and the relationship between pretreatment baseline and posttreatment change scores. CONCLUSIONS: An ideal means of determining the MCID for a given intervention is yet to be determined. It is possible to develop a useful method provided that the assumptions and methodology are initially declared. Our efforts toward the establishment of a MCID will rely on the establishment of specific external criteria based on the symptoms of the patient and treatment intervention being evaluated.