Objective-To compare efficacy and duration of effect on corneal sensitivity of 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride, 0.5% bupivacaine hydrochloride, 2% lidocaine hydrochloride, and 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride solutions following ocular administration in clinically normal horses. Animals-68 clinically normal horses. Procedures-60 horses were assigned to receive 1 anesthetic agent in 1 eye. For each of another 8 horses, 1 eye was treated with each of the anesthetic agents in random order with a 1-week washout period between treatments. Corneal sensitivity was assessed via corneal touch threshold (CTT) measurements obtained with a Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer before and at 1 minute, at 5-minute intervals from 5 to 60 minutes, and at 10-minute intervals from 60 to 90 minutes after application of 0.2 mL of anesthetic agent. General linear mixed models were fitted to the CTT data from each of the 2 experimental groups to assess the effects of the anesthetic agents over time, accounting for repeated observations within individual horses. Results-Corneal sensitivity decreased immediately following topical application of each anesthetic agent; effects persisted for 35 minutes for proparacaine and mepivacaine treatments, 45 minutes for lidocaine treatment, and 60 minutes for bupivacaine treatment. Maximal CTT reduction was achieved following application of bupivacaine or proparacaine solution, whereas mepivacaine solution was least effective. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Ocular application of each evaluated anesthetic agent reduced corneal sensitivity in horses; although 0.5% proparacaine or 2% lidocaine solution appeared to induce adequate short-duration corneal anesthesia, use of 0.5% bupivacaine solution may be more appropriate for procedures requiring longer periods of corneal anesthesia. (Am J Vet Res 2013;74:459-464)
Background: Heart Rhythm Society guidelines outlining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) excluded children and epicardial or abandoned leads due to theoretical risks of harm. Research investigating these risks is lacking. The primary objective of our study is to determine the incidence of adverse events to patients or CIEDs from MRI imaging. The secondary objective is to describe CIED-related artifact on MRI images. Methods: A single-center retrospective review was performed on all patients with CIEDs who underwent 1.5 Tesla MRI between July 2007 and May 2019. We subdivided patients among four cohorts: (1) patients <18 years of age, (2) epicardial leads, (3) abandoned endocardial leads, and (4) abandoned epicardial leads. Descriptive statistics pre-and post-MRI and at follow-up within 1.5 years were conducted. Results: Fifty-four MRIs were performed on 40 patients. Median age was 21.2 years (IQR 12.0-25.0). Eighteen (33%) MRIs contained abandoned leads; 20 (37%) contained epicardial leads. Three patients, one with abandoned epicardial leads and two with abandoned endocardial leads, experienced mild discomfort at the CIED site. One adult with endocardial leads experienced a pause in the heart rate while programmed in a nonpacing mode. No clinically important changes to CIED parameters occurred. Nine MRIs (17%), especially those with functional cardiac imaging, were uninterpretable due to image artifact. Conclusion: In this study, pediatric and adult CHD patients with CIEDs, many with epicardial or abandoned leads, underwent MRIs without clinically significant complications. In some, CIED artifact reduced cardiac MRI image quality due to CIED position.
Previous research by the authors has established that southern root-knot nematode (SRKN, Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood) and yellow and purple nutsedge (YNS, Cyperus esculentus L. and PNS, C. rotundus L.) form a pest-complex that adversely affects a wide variety of crops in the southern and western U.S. These pests appear to have co-evolved a mutually-beneficial relationship that promotes the survival of both nematodes and weeds to the detriment of crops. Traditional management has usually targeted one pest at a time, but managing this pest complex requires that all members of the complex be managed simultaneously. A series of experiments was performed to determine if this specific pest complex could be managed through crop-rotation using a non-dormant M. incognita-resistant variety of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) which can aggressively compete with, and hence decrease, occurrence of both species of nutsedges (NS), and subsequently decrease SRKN by decreasing the availability of root systems of host plants. A previous journal article discussed predicting counts of SRKN second-stage juveniles (SRKN-J2) as a function of YNS and PNS plant counts from a two-year alfalfa rotation experiment, using the Poisson distribution and a scale parameter to handle problems of overdispersion. In this paper, we examine three generalizations of the Poisson distribution that allow for the count variance being larger than the mean count: the Generalized Poisson, the Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP), and the Poisson Hurdle. The ZIP and Hurdle Poisson distributions both account for zero counts as a separate part of the distribution, while the Generalized Poisson incorporates a separate parameter that increases the variance relative to the mean. Different biological scenarios are presented for which each of these three general Poisson distributions might be logically appropriate. In addition, we use the alfalfa rotation data to present comparisons of fitted regression models of the three general Poisson distributions to the results from the previous analysis using the Poisson. For this data, there was no single probability distribution that worked best for all six sampling dates (three in each of the two years). This is not surprising in that over time the alfalfa rotation was, as planned, decreasing both nutsedge and nematode counts, thus presenting a "moving target" for the modeling process.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.