EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50–69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1–10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40–49 years and 70–74 years, although with “limited evidence”. Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50–69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40–45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become “routine mammography” in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged.Key points• EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography.• A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50–69 years.• Extension to 73–75 and from 40–45 to 49 years is also encouraged.• Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used.• DBT is set to become “routine mammography” in the screening setting in the next future.

Left ventricular bypass (LVB) using a roller pump was performed in 39 patients in the immediate postoperative period. In one group, LVB was performed as a last measure to restore cardiac function. The LVB was temporarily effective in this group, but independent circulation was restored in only 2 of 15 patients. Results were considered unsatisfactory. In a second group, LVB was used immediately when acute left ventricular insufficiency refractory to drug treatment developed. In this group, independent circulation was restored in 17 of 18 patients, demonstrating a therapeutic effect. Overall, cardiac activity was restored in 25 patients; 15 patients recovered and were released. Conditions for the recovery of patients are noted.

Coarctation of thoracic aorta is an uncommon diagnosis in adults. Catheter-based intervention consisting of primary ballooning and stenting is becoming one of the methods of choice for the treatment of native coarctation. We describe the case of a young adult with coarctation of the aorta treated unsuccessfully with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stent implantation that resulted in stent migration into the aortic arch and led to an urgent operative intervention. In one step, we performed the evacuation of the foreign body from the aortic arch as well as the treatment of the aortic coarctation through an extra-anatomical vascular graft interposition between the ascending and descending thoracic aorta. In this article, we discuss the need for emergency surgical intervention in this case.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Neopterin and RNA-ase are markers of inflammation with low disclosed role in diagnosis and prognosis of either STEMI or NSTEMI, although inflammation is well documented as a leader pathogenic mechanism in these pathologies. Aim Evaluation of serum admission levels of neopterin and ARN-ase in pts with STEMI and NSTEMI and their prediction value concerning the risk of MACE in 1 year of follow up period. Material and methods The admission serum concentration of neopterin and ARN-ase was determined by ELISA in 94 pts with STEMI and 92 pts with NSTEMI which was compared with normal markers appreciated in 32 healthy persons. Likewise, the rate of MACE in both groups was estimated during 1 year of post-infarction period. Diagnostic worth and MACE prediction power of markers have been established using respectively ROC curve and odds ratio. Results In patients with STEMI the serum level of neopterin was significantly increased compared with normal index by 3,5 times (11,6±3,4 vs 3,3±1,4 nM/L), but RNA-ase was significantly decreased by 43,4% (24,1±3,2 vs 42,6±5,2 nM/ml). In pts with NSTEMI neopterin level was lesser than STEMI, but significantly elevated by 39% (4,6±2,5 vs 3,3±1,4 nM/L) vs normal marker. RNA-ase level didn't significantly differ from normal level. However, adjusted to diabetes mellitus established in 19 pts, RNA-ase significantly diminished (36,4±3,9 vs 42,6±5,2 nM/ml), and its diagnostic value of NSTEMI according to ROC was 69,6% (RNA-ase level indicates inversely inflammation response, such as it breaks down extracellular RNA which has proinflammatory ability). Both markers in pts with NSTEMI and diabetes mellitus demonstrated a diagnostic value of 77,6%. In pts with STEMI highest tertile level of neopterin and lowest tertile level of ARN-ase had 2,8fold (adds ratio=2,8; CI=1,98–4,62; p&lt;0,05) and 2,3fold (adds ratio=2,3; CI=1,71–3,89; p&lt;0,05) higher risk of MACE development. In pts with NSTEMI the combination of these markers (highest and lowest quartile levels) also had a significant prediction regarding MACE risk (adds ratio=2,1; CI=1,86–3,77; p=0,029). Conclusions 1. In STEMI both neopterin and RNA-ase could be as diagnostic markers, due to their significant change. In NSTEMI neopterin significantly elevated, but RNA-ase didn't shift from normal. In diabetic pts with NSTEMI, however, their combination demonstrated in ROC estimation a diagnostic value of 77,6%. 2. Prediction value of markers combination regarding MACE risk in pts with NSTEMI is significant and close to each marker in partly prediction of MACE for pts with STEMI. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Research Institute of Cardiology, Moldova Republic of

No abstract

No abstract