MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 101 subjects recruited from the National Institute of Forensic Medicine (IPFN) Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) over a period of 15 months, from December 2012 until April 2014. PMCT CS of the coronary arteries was calculated using Agatston-Janowitz score. Histological presence of calcification was observed and the degree of stenosis was calculated using an image analysis technique.
RESULTS: PMCT CS increased with increasing severity of stenosis (p<0.001). PMCT CS showed a positive correlation with the presence of calcification (r=-0.82, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Calcium score is strongly associated with coronary artery calcification and the degree of luminal stenosis in post mortem subjects. Thus, PMCT may be useful as a non-invasive tool in diagnosing CAD in the event that an autopsy is not possible.
CASE REPORT: A case of unusual severe HDFN due to anti-D alloimmunisation in undiagnosed RhD negative primigravida Malay woman is reported here. This case illustrates the possibility of an anamnestic response from previous unknown sensitisation event or the development of anti-D in mid trimester. The newborn expired due to hydrops fetalis and severe anaemia. Antenatally, the mother was identified as RhD positive and thus there was no antenatal antibody screening, antepartum anti-D prophylaxis or close fetal monitoring for HDFN.
DISCUSSION: The thorough antenatal ABO and RhD blood grouping with antibody screening is mandatory as part of prevention and early detection of HDFN especially due to anti-D alloimmunisation. Improper management of RhD negative women might lead to severe HDFN including in primigravida.
METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were systematically searched for the relevant studies by following the PRISMA 2009 checklist. A past decade literature search was conducted from 2010 until November 2020 to secure the relevance of the phantom study. Databases were recruited using keywords such as phantom, quantification, standardisation, harmonisation, image quality, standardised uptake value and multicentre study. However, all keywords were related to PET/CT. All abstracts and eligible full-text articles were screened independently, and finally, the quality assessments of this review were performed.
RESULTS: From the 200 retrieved articles, 80 were rejected after the screening of the abstracts and 35 after reading the full-text. The 20 accepted articles addressed the distribution of phantom types used in selected articles studies which were NEMA (67%), ACR (8%) and others (25%). The articles showed the various experimental studies, either phantom studies (35%) or phantom plus clinical studies (65%). For clinical studies (n = 829), the distribution of prospective studies was (n = 674) and retrospective studies was (n =155). The distribution of phantom pathway application showed the studies focused on 40% of reconstruction protocol studies, 30% of the multicentre and standardisation of accreditation program studies, and 30% of the quantification of uptake values studies.
CONCLUSIONS: According to this review, the phantom study have a pivotal role in hybrid nuclear imaging of PET/CT either in technical aspects of the scanners (such as data acquisition and reconstruction protocol) or clinical characteristics of patients. In addition to this, the necessity to identify the suitable system phantoms to use within PET/CT scans by considering the continuous development of new phantom studies are needed. Researchers are encouraged to adopt efforts on phantom quantitative validation, including verification with clinical data of patients.
Methods: An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).
Results: We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.
Conclusions: Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.
METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).
CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .