Conclusion:In patients with a hemodialysis access graft and an asymptomatic central venous stenosis (CVS) of Ͼ50%, treatment of the CVS results in more rapid stenosis progression compared with a nontreatment approach.Summary: The authors evaluated the natural history of Ͼ50% asymptomatic CVSs in hemodialysis patients. Outcome of serial treatment of CVS with percutaneous catheter-based techniques (PTA) was also evaluated. All patients in this study required maintenance procedures for their dialysis access.Between 1998 and 2004, 35 patients (19 men, 16 women), with a mean age of 58.7 years, were found to have asymptomatic CVS of Ͼ50%. CVS was measured by using venograms obtained before and after PTA. Patients with arm swelling, multiple CVSs, or indwelling catheters, were excluded. CVS progression was calculated by comparing degrees of stenoses with serial venographic examinations.The mean severity of CVSs before intervention was 71% (range, 50% to 100%), with 62% of lesions having associated collateral vessels. Twenty eight percent of CVSs were not treated. The mean degree of stenosis in the untreated group was 72% (range, 30% to 100%). Mean progression of stenosis in the untreated group was -0.8% point per day. No untreated CVS progressed to symptoms, stent placement, or developed additional CVS.PTA was used to treat 62 CVS lesions (72%). The mean degree of stenosis in the treated group was 74% (range, 50% to 100%) before and 40% (range, 0% to 75%) after treatment. In the treated group, mean progression of CVS was 0.21% per day after treatment. Six of the 62 treated CVS lesions were monitored, with symptomatic escalation of the CVS as manifested by arm swelling, need for stent placement, or development of additional CVS lesions.Comment: Treatment of an asymptomatic CVS in a dialysis patient is not a good thing. One is reminded of the old adage that it is wise to avoid poking a skunk. A major weakness of this study is that the patients were undergoing maintenance procedures for their dialysis access. We do not know if the CVS contributed to the need for the dialysis access maintenance. It would be interesting to know if there was a higher rate of repeat procedures for maintenance of dialysis access in patients with treated vs untreated CVS.

No abstract

Background Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standardised segmentation are critical but currently unavailable. Methods A modified Delphi process initiated by the European Imaging Biomarker Alliance (EIBALL) of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group was undertaken. Three multidisciplinary task forces addressed modality and image acquisition, segmentation methodology itself, and standards and logistics. Devised survey questions were fed via a facilitator to expert participants. The 58 respondents to Round 1 were invited to participate in Rounds 2–4. Subsequent rounds were informed by responses of previous rounds. Results/conclusions Items with ≥ 75% consensus are considered a recommendation. These include system performance certification, thresholds for image signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and tumour-to-background ratios, spatial resolution, and artefact levels. Direct, iterative, and machine or deep learning reconstruction methods, use of a mixture of CE marked and verified research tools were agreed and use of specified reference standards and validation processes considered essential. Operator training and refreshment were considered mandatory for clinical trials and clinical research. Items with a 60–74% agreement require reporting (site-specific accreditation for clinical research, minimal pixel number within lesion segmented, use of post-reconstruction algorithms, operator training refreshment for clinical practice). Items with ≤ 60% agreement are outside current recommendations for segmentation (frequency of system performance tests, use of only CE-marked tools, board certification of operators, frequency of operator refresher training). Recommendations by anatomical area are also specified.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively compare the left and right atrium strain and strain rate (SR) parameters by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) between patients with Takotsubo (TS) and patients with acute myocarditis (AM). Materials and Methods:We retrospectively enrolled 3 groups of patients: TS (n = 18), AM (n = 14), and 11 healthy subjects. All the patients had complete CMR data for features tracking assessment. Differences in reservoir, conduit strain (ε e ), conduit strain rate (SRe), and booster phase of biatrial strain were analyzed between the groups using analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of covariance analyses. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility was assessed for all strain and SR parameters using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis.Results: Atrial strain was feasible in all patients and controls. In TS, left atrium (LA) reservoir strain (ε s ), reservoir SR, ε e , and SRe were significantly lower compared with the other groups (P = 0,001 for all). multivariate analysis of covariance analysis showed association of these parameters after correction for age and sex, while LA booster deformation (ε a and SRa) strain parameters were preserved. LA SRe proved to have excellent sensitivity in differentiating patients with TS from those with AM (areas under the curves of 0.903, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.99). Biatrial strain and SR parameters showed good (excellent) intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility (ranged between 0.61 to 0.96 and 0.50 to 0.90, respectively). Conclusion:Compared with AM, patients with TS showed significantly decreased LA reservoir, conduit strain, and SR parameters. Therefore, LA strain assessment may have a role in discriminating between TS and AM.

Objectives To compare the use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) between academic and non-academic sites across Europe over the last decade. Methods We analyzed a large multicenter registry (ESCR MR/CT Registry) of stable symptomatic patients who received CCTA 01/2010-01/2020 at 47 (22%) academic and 165 (78%) non-academic sites across 19 European countries. We compared image quality, radiation dose, contrast-media-related adverse events, patient characteristics, CCTA findings, and downstream testing between academic and non-academic sites. Results Among 64,317 included patients (41% female; 60 ± 13 years), academic sites accounted for most cases in 2010-2014 (52%), while non-academic sites dominated in 2015-2020 (71%). Despite less contemporary technology, non-academic sites maintained low radiation doses (4.76 [2.46-6.85] mSv) with a 30% decline of high-dose scans ( > 7 mSv) over time. Academic and non-academic sites both reported diagnostic image quality in 98% of cases and low rate of scan-related adverse events (0.4%). Academic and non-academic sites examined similar patient populations (41% females both; age: 61 ± 14 vs. 60 ± 12 years; pretest probability for obstructive CAD: low 21% vs. 23%, intermediate 73% vs. 72%, high 6% both, CAD prevalence on CCTA: 40% vs. 41%). Nevertheless, non-academic sites referred more patients to non-invasive ischemia testing (6.5% vs. 4.2%) and invasive coronary angiography/surgery (8.5% vs. 5.6%). Conclusions Non-academic and academic sites provide safe, high-quality CCTA across Europe, essential to successfully implement the recently updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. However, despite examining similar populations with comparable CAD prevalence, non-academic sites tend to refer more patients to downstream testing. Key Points• Smaller non-academic providers increasingly use CCTA to rule out obstructive coronary artery disease.• Non-academic and academic sites provide comparably safe, high-quality CCTA across Europe.• Compared to academic sites, non-academic sites tend to refer more patients to downstream testing.