OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on identifying the indicators used to evaluate ACS care pathways and their effect on the care process and clinical outcomes.

METHODS: This review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic research was conducted using five research databases. Two groups were created by dividing the studies according to their year of publication. The first group included those studies published from 1997 to 2007 ("Group 1"), while the second included those published from 2008 to 2018 ("Group 2"). Selected studies were screened using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.

RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. One study was a randomized controlled trial, 14 were predesigns and postdesigns, and two were longitudinal observational designs. The Group 1 studies demonstrated that ACS care pathways had a positive effect on reducing the length of the hospital stay and the door-to-balloon times. Similar effects were observed for the Group 2 studies.

METHODS: A preliminary study was conducted using a pre/posttest one-group quasi-experimental design. A self-administered questionnaire was provided to 37 registered nurses from the cardiac ward of a tertiary hospital. The care pathway was developed on the basis of the current literature, local guidelines, and expert panel advice. The autonomy, teamwork, and burnout levels at the beginning and 4 months after disseminating the care pathway were measured. Implementing the care pathway included educational sessions, training in using the care pathway, and site visits to monitor nursing practices.

RESULTS: Most of the respondents were female (94.6%; n = 35), the median age of the respondents was 26.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 23-31), and the median length of the clinical experience was 4 years (IQR = 2-8). A statistically significant reduction in the mean burnout score was observed (mean of 58.12 vs 52.69, P < .05). A slight improvement in autonomy level was found, although it was not statistically significant. No statistically significant improvement was found in the teamwork levels.

METHODOLOGY: The Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Medline (1966 to April week 1, 2020), Embase (1966 to April week 1, 2020) and trial registries for relevant randomized clinical trials were used. Published and unpublished randomized clinical trials were reviewed and evaluated. Random effects models were used to estimate the continuous outcomes and mean differences (MDs); both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic BP. The secondary outcomes were changes in lipid profile, glucose metabolism, inflammatory markers for CVD, kidney and liver functions safety parameters. We assessed the data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias and quality of evidence.

RESULTS: Five trials were included involving 325 patients aged 18-80 years. Two trials involved high-income countries and three trials involved moderate-income countries. The analysis performed was based on three comparisons. No significant changes were found between systolic or diastolic blood pressure (BP) for the first comparison, 1,000 mg per day for a combined formulation of olive leaf extract versus a placebo. The second comparison, 500 mg per day of olive leaf extract versus placebo or no treatment, showed a significant reduction in systolic BP over a period of at least 8 weeks of follow up (MD -5.78 mmHg, 95% CI [-10.27 to -1.30]) and no significant changes on diastolic BP. The third comparison, 1,000 mg per day of olive leaf extract versus placebo shows no significant difference but an almost similar reduction in systolic BP (-11.5 mmHg in olive leaf extract and -13.7 mmHg in placebo, MD 2.2 mmHg, 95% CI [-0.43-4.83]) and diastolic BP (-4.8 mmHg in olive leaf extract and -6.4 mmHg in placebo, MD 1.60 mmHg, 95% CI [-0.13-3.33]). For secondary outcomes, 1,000 mg per day of olive leaf extract versus captopril showed a reduction in LDL (MD -6.00 mg/dl, 95% CI [-11.5 to -0.50]). The 500 mg per day olive leaf extract versus placebo showed a reduction in inflammatory markers for CVD IL-6 (MD -6.83 ng/L, 95% CI [-13.15 to -0.51]), IL-8 (MD -8.24 ng/L, 95% CI [-16.00 to -0.48) and TNF-alpha (MD -7.40 ng/L, 95% CI [-13.23 to -1.57]).

CONCLUSIONS: The results from this review suggest the reduction of systolic BP, LDL and inflammatory biomarkers, but it may not provide a robust conclusion regarding the effects of olive leaf extract on cardiometabolic profile due to the limited number of participants in the included trials.

METHOD: A total of 2247 PET/CT patients with normal glucose level underwent 18F-FDG-whole body imaging procedures. The 18F-FDG dose of 3.7MBq per kg of patient weight administered via intravenous infusion. For CT parameters, kilovoltage of 140keV and current of 40 mAs were used for all studies. All the acquired images collected retrospectively and the effective dose was calculated for each patient using algorithm adapted from ICRP Publication 106, modified for patient weight and patient blood volume. The estimated effective doses were evaluated for patients' body weight and BMI.

RESULTS: The mean of total effective dose and standard deviation is approximately 15.08(4.52) mSv using ICRP algorithm. 56% of total patient has normal BMI and their average total effective dose is 13.6mSv. Underweight patients' effective dose can be as low as 9.6mSv even using diagnostic CT protocols.