RESULTS: Lab-pressed CPO and commercial dispatch tank (DT) CPO were spiked with PFO and SPO, respectively. Both additives were detectable at concentrations of 1% and 10% (w/w) in spiked lab-pressed CPO, via seven PFO-associated VOCs and 21 SPO-associated VOCs. DT controls could not be distinguished from PFO-spiked DT CPO, suggesting these samples may have already contained low levels of PFO. DT controls were free of SPO. SPO was detected in all SPO-spiked dispatch tank samples by all 21 of the previously distinguished VOCs and had a significant fingerprint consisting of four spectral regions.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study looking at patients who underwent VSD closure with or without aortic valve intervention between January 1st, 1992 and December 31st, 2014 at the Institute Jantung Negara. This study looked at all cases of VSD and AR, where AR was classified as mild, moderate, and severe, the intervention done in each of this grade, and the durability of that intervention. The interventions were classified as no intervention (NI), aortic valve repair (AVr), and aortic valve replacement (AVR).
RESULTS: A total of 261 patients were recruited into this study. Based on the various grades of AR, 105 patients had intervention to their aortic valve during VSD closure. The rest 156 had NI. All patients were followed up for a mean time of 13.9±3.5 years. Overall freedom from reoperation at 15 years was 82.6% for AVr. Various factors were investigated to decide on intervening on the aortic valve during VSD closure. Among those that were statistically significant were the grade of AR, size of VSD, age at intervention, and number of cusp prolapse.
CONCLUSION: We can conclude from our study that all moderate and severe AR with small VSD in older patients with more than one cusp prolapse will need intervention to their aortic valve during the closure of VSD.
METHODS: A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI2 G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.
RESULTS: Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.
CONCLUSION: This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.