Zobrazení zdroje stránky Riisebaird7555

Capillary lymphatic venous malformations (CLVM) are complex vascular anomalies characterized by aberrant and enlarged lymphatic and blood vessels. CLVM appear during fetal development and enlarge after birth, causing life-long complications such as coagulopathy, pulmonary embolism, chronic pain, and disfigurement. Treatment includes surgical debulking, amputation, and recurrent sclerotherapy. Somatic, mosaic mutations in the 110-kD catalytic α-subunit of phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PIK3CA) gene have been previously identified in affected tissues from CLVM patients; however, the cell population harboring the mutation is still unknown. In this study, we hypothesized that endothelial cells (EC) carry the PIK3CA mutations and play a major role in the cellular origin of CLVM. [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/pemigatinib-incb054828.html Pemigatinib] We isolated EC from the lesions of seven patients with CLVM and identified PIK3CA hotspot mutations. The CLVM EC exhibited constitutive phosphorylation of the PI3K effector AKT as well as hyperproliferation and increased resistance to cell death compared to normal EC. Inhibitors of PIK3CA (BYL719) and AKT (ARQ092) attenuated the proliferation of CLVM EC in a dose-dependent manner. A xenograft model of CLVM was developed by injecting patient-derived EC into the flanks of immunocompromised mice. CLVM EC formed lesions with enlarged lymphatic and vascular channels, recapitulating the patient histology. EC subpopulations were further obtained by both immunomagnetic separation into lymphatic EC (LEC) and vascular EC (VEC) and generation of clonal populations. By sequencing these subpopulations, we determined that both LEC and VEC from the same patient express the PIK3CA mutation, exhibit increased AKT activation and can form lymphatic or vascular lesions in mouse.Decision-making capacity (DMC) is the gatekeeping element for a patient's right to self-determination with regard to medical decisions. A DMC evaluation is not only conducted on descriptive grounds but is an inherently normative task including ethical reasoning. Therefore, it is dependent to a considerable extent on the values held by the clinicians involved in the DMC evaluation. Dealing with the question of how to reasonably support clinicians in arriving at a DMC judgment, a new tool is presented that fundamentally differs from existing ones the U-Doc. By putting greater emphasis on the judgmental process rather than on the measurement of mental abilities, the clinician as a decision-maker is brought into focus, rendering the tool more of an evaluation guide than a test instrument. In a qualitative study, the perceived benefits of and difficulties with the tool have been explored. The findings show on the one hand that the evaluation aid provides basic orientation, supports a holistic perspective on the patient, sensitizes for ethical considerations and personal biases, and helps to think through the decision, to argue, and to justify one's judgment. On the other hand, the room for interpretation due to absent operationalisations, related ambiguities, and the confrontation with one's own subjectivity may be experienced as unsettling.Considering the increased use of interventional cardiologic procedures and concern about irradiation to the eyes, it is necessary to measure eye dose in radiation workers. The assessment of eye dose using collar dose is a routine but inaccurate method. Therefore this study was designed to measure eye dose in the radiation workers of various interventional cardiologic procedures. In this study eye dose was measured for left and right eyes in three groups of radiation workers in angiography ward of Afshar hospital in various procedures using TLD. Measurements were done separately for cardiologists, nurses and radio-technologists in 100 procedures. The nurses functioned as surgical assistants and were usually close to the table. The correlation of staff dose to exposure parameters was also investigated. Eye dose in physicians were higher than other staff in all procedures. Also the left eye dose was considerably higher than right one, especially for physicians. The median equivalent dose per procedure of left eye for physicians, nurses and radio-technologists were 7.4, 3.6, 1.4&nbsp;µSv (PCI) and 3.2, 3.1, 1.3&nbsp;µSv (Adhoc) and 3.2, 1.7, 1.1&nbsp;µSv (CA), respectively. The annual left eye equivalent dose with (without) using lead goggles were 2.4 (15.3), 1.4 (2.2), 1.0 (1.1)&nbsp;mSv for physicians, nurses and radio-technologists, respectively. There were also a positive correlation between eye dose and KAP for procedures without lead goggles. The lead goggles showed lower protection effects for radio-technologists than other staff. Only 30% of physicians received a dose higher than 1/3 of the ICRP annual dose limit, therefor only physician eye dose should be monitored in catheterization labs.Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a well-recognised complication of sarcoidosis. Non-invasive diagnosis is challenging due to limited accuracy of echocardiography in interstitial lung disease. This study evaluates the value of echocardiographic PH probability for diagnosing PH in pulmonary sarcoidosis. All consecutive patients between August 2015 and November 2018 were prospectively screened for PH, and classified as low, intermediate or high PH probability. Patients with intermediate or high PH probability were referred for right heart catheterisation. PH was defined as a mean pulmonary artery pressure of ≥ 25&nbsp;mm Hg. Additional data on pulmonary function and chest-CT was collected. Of all 479 patients, PH was present in 17 and absent in 19 patients. Six patients refused right heart catheterisation. PH was present in 33% and 75% of patients with intermediate and high PH probability respectively (n = 36). TRV max was measurable in 46% of all patients. Measurability did not correlate with FVC% predicted or presence of significant fibrosis. In intermediate and high PH probability, TRV max  3.4&nbsp;m/s. Discrimination is challenging if the TRV max is between 2.9-3.4&nbsp;m/s or absent. Additional secondary signs do not improve discrimination. Decision making for further investigations should be made by an expert team.