PET/CT is useful in differentiating between CIED infection and recent post-implant changes. It may guide appropriate therapy.

Three-dimensional (3D) mode imaging is the current standard for PET/CT systems. Dynamic imaging for quantification of myocardial blood flow with short-lived tracers, such as 82 Rb-chloride, requires accuracy to be maintained over a wide range of isotope activities and scanner counting rates. We proposed new performance standard measurements to characterize the dynamic range of PET systems for accurate quantitative imaging. Methods: 82 Rb or 13 Nammonia (1,100-3,000 MBq) was injected into the heart wall insert of an anthropomorphic torso phantom. A decaying isotope scan was obtained over 5 half-lives on 9 different 3D PET/CT systems and 1 3D/2-dimensional PET-only system. Dynamic images (28 · 15 s) were reconstructed using iterative algorithms with all corrections enabled. Dynamic range was defined as the maximum activity in the myocardial wall with less than 10% bias, from which corresponding dead-time, counting rates, and/or injected activity limits were established for each scanner. Scatter correction residual bias was estimated as the maximum cavity blood-to-myocardium activity ratio. Image quality was assessed via the coefficient of variation measuring nonuniformity of the left ventricular myocardium activity distribution. Results: Maximum recommended injected activity/body weight, peak dead-time correction factor, counting rates, and residual scatter bias for accurate cardiac myocardial blood flow imaging were 3-14 MBq/kg, 1.5-4.0, 22-64 Mcps singles and 4-14 Mcps prompt coincidence counting rates, and 2%-10% on the investigated scanners. Nonuniformity of the myocardial activity distribution varied from 3% to 16%. Conclusion: Accurate dynamic imaging is possible on the 10 3D PET systems if the maximum injected MBq/kg values are respected to limit peak dead-time losses during the bolus first-pass transit. PETi maging in 3-dimensional (3D) mode has become the standard for new whole-body scanners. The increased sensitivity allows for reduction of injected activity to the patient while maintaining excellent image quality; however, random and scattered photon counts are increased, requiring systems with high counting rate capability and accurate corrections for these physical effects. Current PET instrumentation and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) performance evaluation methods (1) have been developed primarily to optimize whole-body oncology imaging with 18 F-FDG. However, dynamic PET imaging for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification with short-lived tracers, such as 82 Rb, 15 O-water, or 13 N-ammonia, requires high counting rates and correction accuracy to be maintained over a wide range of measured activities (2). An ideal PET system should allow for conventional relative myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) of tracer retention without compromising accuracy of first-pass dynamic data (3). Routine MBF imaging is clinically feasible with the 76-s half-life generator-produced tracer 82 Rb, resulting in accurate (4,5) and reproducible measurements (3,6-8), as validated against 13 N-ammonia...

Background When designing and developing patient decision aids, guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders. There are myriad ways to do this. We aimed to describe how such involvement occurs by synthesizing reports of patient decision aid design and development within a user-centered design framework and to provide context by synthesizing reports of user-centered design applied to other personal health tools. Methods We included articles describing at least one development step of 1) a patient decision aid, 2) user- or human-centered design of another personal health tool, or 3) evaluation of these. We organized data within a user-centered design framework comprising 3 elements in iterative cycles: understanding users, developing/refining prototype, and observing users. Results We included 607 articles describing 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 other personal health tool projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least 1 step for understanding users, 35% in at least 1 step for developing/refining the prototype, and 84% in at least 1 step for observing users’ interaction with the prototype. In comparison, other personal health tool projects reported 91%, 49%, and 92%, respectively. A total of 74% of patient decision aid projects and 92% of other personal health tool projects reported iterative processes, both with a median of 3 iterative cycles. Preliminary evaluations such as usability or feasibility testing were reported in 66% of patient decision aid projects and 89% of other personal health tool projects. Conclusions By synthesizing design and development practices, we offer evidence-based portraits of user involvement. Those wishing to further align patient decision aid design and development with user-centered design methods could involve users earlier, design and develop iteratively, and report processes in greater detail.

BackgroundPatient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations.MethodsTo describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews.ResultsOut of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18–7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23–9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users’ needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities.ConclusionsThere are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0399-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is the preferential lipoprotein carrier of oxidized phospholipids (OxPLs) and a well-established genetic risk factor for calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS). Whether Lp(a) predicts aortic valve microcalcification in individuals without CAVS is unknown. Our objective was to estimate the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) and OxPL levels in patients with CAVS and to determine if individuals with elevated Lp(a) but without CAVS have higher aortic valve microcalcification.CJC Open 1 (2019) 131e140

Background: Multiple guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders in developing patient decision aids; however, best practices have yet to be identified. User-centered design is a well-established approach for engaging users in developing tools. We aimed to compile reports of patient decision aid development, using a user-centered design framework to synthesize evidence of existing practices and identify potential opportunities for improvement.Methods: We conducted searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar. We included articles describing (1) at least one development step of a patient decision aid, (2) at least one development step of user- or human-centered design of another patient-centered tool, and/or (3) evaluation of included decision aids and other patient-centered tools. Two analysts independently screened for inclusion, assessed study quality, and extracted data.Results: We included 623 articles describing 390 projects: 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 user-centered design projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least one development step for understanding users, 35% in at least one development step for developing/refining the prototype and 84% in at least one development step for directly or indirectly observing prospective users’ interaction with the prototype. User-centered design projects reported 91%, 49% and 92%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of patient decision aid projects reported iterative development processes with median 3 development cycles (interquartile range 2-4); 92% of user-centered design projects reported iterativity, with median 3 development cycles (interquartile range 2-3). Sixty-six percent of patient decision aid projects and 89% of user-centered design projects reported preliminary evaluations such as usability testing or feasibility testing.Conclusions: We identified 3 key opportunities for improving the user-centeredness of patient decision aid development: involving users earlier to understand their needs, goals, strengths, limitations, context and intuitive processes; asking about and observing users’ interactions with developing versions of the decision aid; and reporting changes between iterative cycles. Additionally, developers of patient decision aids and other patient-centered tools may wish to more often involve patients, clinicians and other users in co-design of prototypes and in formal advisory or partnership roles.

Background Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development. Objective The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools. Methods We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. Results We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved. Conclusions The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.

IMPORTANCE Genetic variants at the LPA locus are associated with both calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether these variants are associated with CAVS in patients with CAD vs those without CAD is unknown. OBJECTIVE To study the associations of LPA variants with CAVS in a cohort of patients undergoing heart surgery and LPA with CAVS in patients with CAD vs those without CAD and to determine whether first-degree relatives of patients with CAVS and high lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels showed evidence of aortic valve microcalcification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This genetic association study included patients undergoing cardiac surgery from the Genome-Wide Association Study on Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis in Quebec (QUEBEC-CAVS) study and patients with CAD, patients without CAD, and control participants from 6 genetic association studies: the UK Biobank, the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk, and Genetic Epidemiology Research on Aging (GERA) studies and 3 French cohorts. In addition, a family study included first-degree relatives of patients with CAVS.