Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been demonstrated to attenuate acute lung injury when delivered by intravenous or intratracheal routes. The authors aimed to determine the efficacy of and ...mechanism of action of intratracheal MSC therapy and to compare their efficacy in enhancing lung repair after ventilation-induced lung injury with intravenous MSC therapy.
: After induction of anesthesia, rats were orotracheally intubated and subjected to ventilation-induced lung injury (respiratory rate 18(-1) min, P insp 35 cm H2O,) to produce severe lung injury. After recovery, animals were randomized to receive: (1) no therapy, n = 4; (2) intratracheal vehicle (phosphate-buffered saline, 300 µl, n = 8); (3) intratracheal fibroblasts (4 × 10 cells, n = 8); (4) intratracheal MSCs (4 × 10(6) cells, n = 8); (5) intratracheal conditioned medium (300 µl, n = 8); or (6) intravenous MSCs (4 × 10(6) cells, n = 4). The extent of recovery after acute lung injury and the inflammatory response was assessed after 48 h.
Intratracheal MSC therapy enhanced repair after ventilation-induced lung injury, improving arterial oxygenation (mean ± SD, 146 ± 3.9 vs. 110.8 ± 21.5 mmHg), restoring lung compliance (1.04 ± 0.11 vs. 0.83 ± 0.06 ml · cm H2O(-1)), reducing total lung water, and decreasing lung inflammation and histologic injury compared with control. Intratracheal MSC therapy attenuated alveolar tumor necrosis factor-α (130 ± 43 vs. 488 ± 211 pg · ml(-1)) and interleukin-6 concentrations (138 ± 18 vs. 260 ± 82 pg · ml(-1)). The efficacy of intratracheal MSCs was comparable with intravenous MSC therapy. Intratracheal MSCs seemed to act via a paracine mechanism, with conditioned MSC medium also enhancing lung repair after injury.
Intratracheal MSC therapy enhanced recovery after ventilation-induced lung injury via a paracrine mechanism, and was as effective as intravenous MSC therapy.
Indications for carotid endarterectomy have engendered considerable debate among experts and have resulted in publication of retrospective reviews, natural history studies, audits of community ...practice, position papers, expert opinion statements, and finally prospective randomized trials. The American Heart Association assembled a group of experts in a multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop this statement.
A conference was held July 16-18, 1993, in Park City, Utah, that included recognized experts in neurology, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, and healthcare planning. A program of critical topics was developed, and each expert presented a talk and provided the chairman with a summary statement. From these summary statements a document was developed and edited onsite to achieve consensus before final revision.
The first section of this document reviews the natural history, methods of patient evaluation, options for medical management, results of surgical management, data from position statements, and results to date of prospective randomized trials for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery disease. The second section divides 96 potential indications for carotid endarterectomy, based on surgical risk, into four categories: (1) Proven: This is the strongest indication for carotid endarterectomy; data are supported by results of prospective contemporary randomized trials. (2) Acceptable but not proven: a good indication for operation; supported by promising but not scientifically certain data. (3) Uncertain: Data are insufficient to define the risk/benefit ratio. (4) Proven inappropriate: Current data are adequate to show that the risk of surgery outweighs any benefit.
Indications for carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic good-risk patients with a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 6% are as follows. (1) Proven: one or more TIAs in the past 6 months and carotid stenosis > or = 70% or mild stroke within 6 months and a carotid stenosis > or = 70%; (2) acceptable but not proven: TIAs within the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, progressive stroke and a stenosis > or = 70%, mild or moderate stroke in the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, or carotid endarterectomy ipsilateral to TIAs and a stenosis > or = 70% combined with required coronary artery bypass grafting; (3) uncertain: TIAs with a stenosis < 50%, mild stroke and stenosis < 50%, TIAs with a stenosis < 70% combined with coronary artery bypass grafting, or symptomatic, acute carotid thrombosis; (4) proven inappropriate: moderate stroke with stenosis < 50%, not on aspirin; single TIA, < 50% stenosis, not on aspirin; high-risk patient with multiple TIAs, not on aspirin, stenosis < 50%; high-risk patient, mild or moderate stroke, stenosis < 50%, not on aspirin; global ischemic symptoms with stenosis < 50%; acute dissection, asymptomatic on heparin. Indications for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic good-risk patients performed by a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 3% are as follows. (1) Proven: none. As this statement went to press, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke issued a clinical advisory stating that the Institute has halted the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) because of a clear benefit in favor of surgery for patients with carotid stenosis > or = 60% as measured by diameter reduction. When the ACAS report is published, this indication will be recategorized as proven. (2) acceptable but not proven: stenosis > 75% by linear diameter; (3) uncertain: stenosis > 75% in a high-risk patient/surgeon (surgical morbidity and mortality rate > 3%), combined carotid/coronary operations, or ulcerative lesions without hemodynamically significant stenosis; (4) proven inappropriate: operations with a combined stroke morbidity and mortality > 5%.
Indications for carotid endarterectomy have engendered considerable debate among experts and have resulted in publication of retrospective reviews, natural history studies, audits of community ...practice, position papers, expert opinion statements, and finally prospective randomized trials. The American Heart Association assembled a group of experts in a multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop this statement.
A conference was held July 16-18, 1993, in Park City, Utah, that included recognized experts in neurology, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, and healthcare planning. A program of critical topics was developed, and each expert presented a talk and provided the chairman with a summary statement. From these summary statements a document was developed and edited onsite to achieve consensus before final revision.
The first section of this document reviews the natural history, methods of patient evaluation, options for medical management, results of surgical management, data from position statements, and results to date of prospective randomized trials for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery disease. The second section divides 96 potential indications for carotid endarterectomy, based on surgical risk, into four categories: (1) Proven: This is the strongest indication for carotid endarterectomy; data are supported by results of prospective contemporary randomized trials. (2) Acceptable but not proven: a good indication for operation; supported by promising but not scientifically certain data. (3) Uncertain: Data are insufficient to define the risk/benefit ratio. (4) Proven inappropriate: Current data are adequate to show that the risk of surgery outweighs any benefit.
Indications for carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic good-risk patients with a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 6% are as follows. (1) Proven: one or more TIAs in the past 6 months and carotid stenosis > or = 70% or mild stroke within 6 months and a carotid stenosis > or = 70%; (2) acceptable but not proven: TIAs within the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, progressive stroke and a stenosis > or = 70%, mild or moderate stroke in the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, or carotid endarterectomy ipsilateral to TIAs and a stenosis > or = 70% combined with required coronary artery bypass grafting; (3) uncertain: TIAs with a stenosis < 50%, mild stroke and stenosis < 50%, TIAs with a stenosis < 70% combined with coronary artery bypass grafting, or symptomatic, acute carotid thrombosis; (4) proven inappropriate: moderate stroke with stenosis < 50%, not on aspirin; single TIA, < 50% stenosis, not on aspirin; high-risk patient with multiple TIAs, not on aspirin, stenosis < 50%; high-risk patient, mild or moderate stroke, stenosis < 50%, not on aspirin; global ischemic symptoms with stenosis < 50%; acute dissection, asymptomatic on heparin. Indications for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic good-risk patients performed by a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 3% are as follows. (1) Proven: none. (As this statement went to press, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke issued a clinical advisory stating that the Institute has halted the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) because of a clear benefit in favor of surgery for patients with carotid stenosis > or = 60% as measured by diameter reduction. When the ACAS report is published, this indication will be recategorized as proven. (2) acceptable but not proven: stenosis > 75% by linear diameter; (3) uncertain; stenosis > 75% in a high-risk patient/surgeon (surgical morbidity and mortality rate > 3%), combined carotid/coronary operations, or ulcerative lesions without hemodynamically significant stenosis; (4) proven inappropriate: operations with a combined stroke morbidity and mortality > 5%.
Positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) is established in the staging of esophageal cancer. In this study, an MRI protocol was designed to emulate the anatomical (T1-weighed ...(T1W) and T2W imaging) and functional information (diffusion-weighted imaging) provided by PET-CT.
In all, 49 patients with carcinoma of the esophagus underwent PET-CT and whole-body MRI (WBMRI). WBMRI was carried out using dedicated sequences tailored to detect metastatic disease at each area corresponding to the anatomical coverage of PET-CT. Nodal status was determined from histopathology and endoscopic ultrasound biopsy (EUS).
PET-CT and WBMRI identified the primary tumor in 46/49 (94%) and 48/49 (98%) patients, respectively. Nodal analysis in patients undergoing surgery (n = 18) yielded sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of 27, 100, 100, 47 and 56% for PET-CT, compared with 30, 100, 100, 53 and 61% for WBMRI. When nodal analysis included both surgical specimens and EUS criteria (n = 39), sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 46, 91, 93, 40 and 59% for PET-CT compared with 59, 92, 94, 50 and 67% for WBMRI. Both imaging modalities identified distant metastases in 2 patients.
WBMRI has similar accuracy to PET-CT in detecting the primary tumor, nodal deposits and for exclusion of systemic metastatic disease.
Public Administration: Vitality and Perplexity Toole, Laurence J. O'; Buechner, John C.; Koprowski, Eugene J. ...
Public Administration Review,
09/1978, Letnik:
38, Številka:
5
Book Review, Journal Article
PDF
