PurposeCardiac MR (CMR) is the gold standard for left ventricular (LV) quantification. However, two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) is the most common approach, and both three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) and multidetector CT (MDCT) are increasingly available. The clinical significance and interchangeability of these modalities remains under-investigated. Therefore, we undertook a systemic review to evaluate the accuracy and absolute bias in LV quantification of all the commonly available non-invasive imaging modalities (2DE, CE-2DE, 3DE, MDCT) compared to cardiac MR (CMR).MethodsStudies were included that reported LV echocardiographic (2DE, CE-2DE, 3DE) and/or MDCT measurements compared to CMR. Only modern CMR (SSFP sequences) was considered. Studies involving small sample size (<10 patients) and unusual cardiac geometry (ie, congenital heart diseases) were excluded. We evaluated LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), end-systolic volume (LVESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF).Results1604 articles were initially considered: 65 studies were included (total of 4032 scans (echo, CT, MRI) performed in 2888 patients). Compared to CMR, significant biased underestimation of LV volumes with 2DE was seen (LVEDV—33.30 mL, LVESV −16.20 mL, p<0.0001). This difference was reduced but remained significant with CE-2DE (LVEDV −18.05, p<0.0001) and 3DE (LVEDV −14.41, p<0.001), while MDCT values were similar to CMR (LVEDV −1.20, p=0.43; LVESV −0.13, p=0.91). However, excellent agreement for echocardiographic LVEF evaluation (2DE LVEF 0.78–1.01%, p=0.37) was observed, especially with 3DE (LVEF 0.14%, p=0.88).ConclusionsComparing imaging modalities to CMR as reference standard, 3DE had the highest accuracy in LVEF estimation: 2DE and 3DE-derived LV volumes were significantly underestimated. Newer generation CT showed excellent accuracy for LV volumes.

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health problem. There is minimal consensus of the appropriate approach to manage patients with positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), following a recent colonoscopy. AIM To determine the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in patients with a positive iFOBT after a recent colonoscopy, and clinical and endoscopic predictors for advanced neoplasia. METHODS The study recruited iFOBT positive patients who underwent colonoscopy between July 2015 to March 2020. Data collected included demographics, clinical characteristics, previous and current colonoscopy findings. Primary outcome was the prevalence of CRC and advanced neoplasia in a patient with positive iFOBT and previous colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included identifying any clinical and endoscopic predictors for advanced neoplasia. RESULTS The study included 1051 patients (male 53.6%; median age 63). Forty-two (4.0%) patients were diagnosed with CRC, 513 (48.8%) with adenoma/sessile serrated lesion (A-SSL) and 257 (24.5%) with advanced A-SSL (AA-SSL). A previous colonoscopy had been performed in 319 (30.3%). In this cohort, four (1.3%) were diagnosed with CRC, 146 (45.8%) with A-SSL and 56 (17.6%) with AA-SSL. Among those who had a colonoscopy within 4 years, none had CRC and 7 had AA-SSL. Of the 732 patients with no prior colonoscopy, there were 38 CRCs (5.2%). Independent predictors for advanced neoplasia were male [odds ratio (OR) = 1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-2.40; P < 0.001), age (OR = 1.04; 95%CI: 1.02-1.06; P < 0.001) and no previous colonoscopy (OR = 2.07; 95%CI: 1.49-2.87; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION A previous colonoscopy, irrespective of its result, was associated with low prevalence of advanced neoplasia, and if performed within four years of a positive iFOBT result, was protective against CRC.

No abstract

We conclude that hepatotoxicity is a rare adverse effect of bupropion use, but physicians should be aware of the possibility of this potentially serious clinical picture of drug-induced hepatotoxicity with varied clinical presentation and prognosis.

No abstract