Background Both statins and ezetimibe lower LDL-C, but ezetimibe’s effect on atherosclerosis is controversial. We hypothesized that lowering LDL-C cholesterol by adding ezetimibe to statin therapy would regress atherosclerosis measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the superficial femoral artery (SFA) in peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Methods – Atherosclerotic plaque volume was measured in the proximal 15–20 cm of the SFA in 67 PAD patients (age 63±10, ABI 0.69±0.14) at baseline and annually x 2. Statin-naïve patients (n=34) were randomized to simvastatin 40mg (S, n=16) or simvastatin 40mg + ezetimibe 10mg (S+E, n=18). Patients already on statins but with LDL-C>80 mg/dl had open-label ezetimibe 10mg added (E, n=33). Repeated measures models estimated changes in plaque parameters over time and between-group differences. Results – LDL-C was lower at year 1 in S+E (67±7mg/dl) than S (91±8mg/dl, p<0.05), but similar at year 2 (68±10 vs. 83±11mg/dl, respectively). Plaque volume did not change from baseline to year 2 in either S+E (11.5±1.4cm3 to 10.5±1.3cm3, p=NS) or S (11.0±1.5cm3 to 10.5±1.4cm3, p=NS). In E, plaque progressed from baseline to year 2 (10.0±0.8 cm3 to 10.8±0.9, p<0.01) despite a 22% decrease in LDL-C. Conclusions – Statin initiation with or without ezetimibe in statin-naïve patients halts progression of peripheral atherosclerosis. When ezetimibe is added to patients previously on statins, peripheral atherosclerosis progressed. Thus, ezetimibe’s effect on peripheral atherosclerosis may depend upon relative timing of statin therapy. Clinical Trial Registration Information - NCT00587678 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00587678

Background Premedications are commonly given to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients prior to intravenous infliximab administration. We aimed to (1) describe practice variability; and (2) determine clinician rationale for premedicating IBD patients prior to infliximab administration. Methods We developed a cross-sectional electronic survey after comprehensive literature review to assess practice variability and clinician rationale for premedication use prior to infliximab. An optional post-survey quiz assessed clinicians’ understanding of available literature. The survey was distributed through members-only NASPGHAN and Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) listservs and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) web-based discussion boards. Results 379 unique respondents with a 93.3% survey completion rate comprised 331 (87%) and 45 (12%) pediatric and adult gastroenterologists. Among numerous options for premedications, acetaminophen (66%) and diphenhydramine (64%) were most often given prior to each infliximab infusion. Only 20% did not routinely use premedications. There was heterogeneity of premedication use between gastroenterologists within the same clinical practice. Of 328 (87%) respondents who completed the knowledge assessment quiz, only 18% identified the association of diphenhydramine use with increased reaction. Conclusion There is high inter- and intra-practice variability for premedication use prior to infliximab administration. Clinician rationale for premedicating patients appears to be driven by individual preference or group practice habit. Improved knowledge of the evidence may assist in decreasing over-use of premedications, particularly diphenhydramine.

Publish with Bio Med Central and every scientist can read your work free of charge "BioMed Central will be the most significant development for disseminating the results of biomedical researc h in our lifetime."

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2009, 11(Suppl 1):O1Introduction: Prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter/ defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with chronic myocardial infarction (CMI) and an increased risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmia (VA). The use of ICDs in this large patient population is still limited by high costs and possible adverse events including inappropriate discharges and progression of heart failure. VA is related to infarct size and seems to be related to infarct morphology. Contrast enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (ceCMR) can detect and quantify myocardial fibrosis in the setting of CMI and might therefore be a valuable tool for a more accurate risk stratification in this setting. Hypothesis: ceCMR can identify the subgroup developing VA in patients with prophylactic ICD implantation following MADIT criteria. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 52 patients (49 males, age 69 ± 10 years) with CMI and clinical indication for ICD therapy following MADIT criteria. Prior to implantation (36 ± 78 days) patients were investigated on a 1.5 T clinical scanner (Siemens Avanto © , Germany) to assess left ventricular function (LVEF), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and LV mass (sequence parameters: GRE SSFP, matrix 256 × 192, short axis stack; full LV coverage, no gap; slice thickness 6 mm). For quantitative assessment of infarct morphology late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was performed including measurement of total and relative infarct mass (related to LV mass) and the degree of transmurality (DT) as defined by the percentage of transmurality in each scar. (sequence parameters: inversion recovery gradient echo; matrix 256 × 148, imaging 10 min after 0.2 μg/kg gadolinium DTPA; slice orientation equal to SSFP). MRI images were analysed using dedicated software (MASS © , Medis,

Objectives: Endoscopic remission has become a standard treatment target in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It is unclear how widely this practice has been adopted amongst pediatric gastroenterology providers. This study determines the frequency of repeat endoscopy in pediatric IBD and evaluates for predictive baseline characteristics of providers. Methods: We developed a cross-sectional survey, which was distributed via 3 national email listservs to pediatric gastroenterology providers. We obtained baseline characteristics of respondents and assessed motivations and barriers for the practice of repeat endoscopy compared with none. Results: Two hundred and thirty-eight unique respondents completed the online survey. Response rate was 11% (238 of 2300 possible participants). The majority practice in an academic setting (77%) and reported participation in ImproveCareNow (63%). Overall, 65% of respondents perform repeat endoscopy to assess for endoscopic remission in pediatric IBD as part of routine clinical practice. Fifty-six percent reported repeat endoscopy as individuals in the absence of a departmental protocol. ''Symptoms are not sufficient to follow IBD patients'' was reported by 82% of those who repeat endoscopy; conversely, ''I perform endoscopy based on clinical, biomarker, and/or imaging trends'' was reported by 81% of those who do not repeat endoscopy. The establishment of a pediatric-specific guideline was most commonly reported to change current practice, based on rank-order scoring. Conclusions: A majority of representative providers repeat endoscopy to assess for endoscopic remission in pediatric IBD. Fewer years in practice favored repeating endoscopy. The need for North American pediatric guidelines with pediatric-specific evidence to support the long-term benefits of endoscopic remission are highlighted in this study.