No abstract

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

No abstract

No abstract

Disclaimer:The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Nurse-led care of patients with AF is superior to usual care provided by a cardiologist in terms of cardiovascular hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality. Trial registration information: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier number: NCT00391872.

Oxidative modification of low density lipoprotein (LDL) has been implicated as a factor in the generation of macrophage-derived foam cells, the hallmark of atherosclerotic plaques. Because LDL consists of discrete subtractions with different physicochemical characteristics, the question arises as to whether these LDL subtractions differ in their susceptibility to oxidative modification. To answer this question, three LDL subtractions, LDL,, LDL 2 , and LDL 3 , were isolated from the plasmas of 11 healthy volunteers by density gradient ultracentrifugation. The LDL subtractions were oxidatively modified by incubation with copper ions. Differences in the subtractions' susceptibilities to lipid peroxidation were studied by measuring the formation of the 234-nm-absorbing oxidation products every 3 minutes on an ultraviolet spectrophotometer. are positively correlated with the incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD). 1 In the last decade, evidence has accumulated that human plasma LDL comprises discrete subtractions, varying in size, density, and lipid content.2 -6 Two to three LDL subtractions can be detected and isolated from normolipidemic plasma by density gradient ultracentrifugation.7 These LDL subtractions have been found to differ in chemical composition and molecular size.7 Several lines of evidence suggest that the

B r e a s t T u m o rs: C o m p a ra tiv e A c c u ra c y o f MR Im a g in g R elativ e to M a m m o g ra p h y a n d US fo r D e m o n s tra tin g E x te n t1 A PURPOSE; To evaluate the compara tive accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging relative to mammogra phy and ultrasonography (US) for assessing the extent of breast tumors. MATERIALS A N D METHODS:His tologic results and preoperative im aging findings (mammography, US, MR imaging) were analyzed regard ing tumor size and multifocality of 61 tumors in 60 women undergoing mastectomy for carcinoma. RESULTS:In 10% of cases, the index tumor was not seen at mammogra phy. With US, 15% of the index tu mors were not recognized, while MR imaging missed 2% of the index tu mors. On mammographic and US images, tumor size was underesti mated significantly (P < .005), by 14% and 18%, respectively, while MR im aging showed no significant differ ence in size compared with that found in a pathologic evaluation. Mammography showed 31% of the additional invasive lesions, w hile US showed 38% and MR imaging showed 100%. CONCLUSION: MR imaging was the most accurate of the three preopera tive imaging modalities in assessing the size and number of malignant lesions in the breast.