Attitude and Perception Toward Taking Selfies and Using Filters and Their Relationship With Blepharoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Due to the general increase in the use of social media, the increasing popularity of taking selfies and using filters, we found it essential to examine the effect of these behaviors on the perception and attitude toward blepharoplasty. AIM: This article was conducted to assess participants' attitudes and perceptions toward taking selfies and using filters and their relation to blepharoplasty. METHODS: This study was an observational cross-sectional study undertaken in Saudi Arabia. The study targeted all adults in Saudi Arabia. The study subjects are adults living in Saudi Arabia who consented to participate in the study and have filled out the questionnaire fully between January and April 2022 while meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A convenient sampling technique was used for data collection. The Chi-square test was used to test for association. RESULTS: A total of 466 participants were included in the study. (94.6%) of the participants reported taking selfies, with varying frequencies, with Snapchat being the most commonly used application (82.5%). Moreover, 87.05% of the participants reported using filters, and 96.08% of those who use filters used them from Snapchat. 45.5% of the participants reported comparing their eyelids with others' when seeing their selfies, 50.6% reported thinking that taking a selfie has a role in making a decision to undergo blepharoplasty, and 47.6% reported thinking that using filters has a role in making a decision to undergo blepharoplasty.  Conclusion: This study reflected a notably high rate of taking selfies and using photo filters. The participants' assessment toward the impact of taking selfies and using filters on the decision to undergo blepharoplasty was observed to be moderate. Females were observed to have significantly higher rates of thinking that taking pictures and using filters influence the decision to undergo blepharoplasty compared to males.

Incidental Unruptured Isolated Left Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm: A Rare Entity.

Iliac artery aneurysms (IAA) are a rare entity. The etiology behind IAA is unclear; however, it is typically degenerative or atherosclerotic in origin. In patients presenting with sudden rupture requiring emergent surgery, mortality rates are high, signifying the need for prompt diagnosis and treatment. We report a case of an incidentally found unruptured isolated left common iliac artery aneurysm in an 80-year-old man. Management with aortofemoral angioplasty was successfully performed for this patient.

Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron.

BACKGROUND: T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron concentration has improved the outcome of transfusion dependant anaemia patients. Clinical evaluation is performed at 1.5 T but scanners operating at 3 T are increasing in numbers. There is a paucity of data on the relative merits of iron quantification at 3 T vs 1.5 T. METHODS: A total of 104 transfusion dependent anaemia patients and 20 normal volunteers were prospectively recruited to undergo cardiac and liver T2* assessment at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Intra-observer, inter-observer and inter-study reproducibility analysis were performed on 20 randomly selected patients for cardiac and liver T2*. RESULTS: Association between heart and liver T2* at 1.5 T and 3 T was non-linear with good fit (R (2) = 0.954, p < 0.001 for heart white-blood (WB) imaging; R (2) = 0.931, p < 0.001 for heart black-blood (BB) imaging; R (2) = 0.993, p < 0.001 for liver imaging). R2* approximately doubled between 1.5 T and 3 T with linear fits for both heart and liver (94, 94 and 105 % respectively). Coefficients of variation for intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, as well as inter-study reproducibility trended to be less good at 3 T (3.5 to 6.5 %) than at 1.5 T (1.4 to 5.7 %) for both heart and liver T2*. Artefact scores for the heart were significantly worse with the 3 T BB sequence (median 4, IQR 2-5) compared with the 1.5 T BB sequence (4 [3-5], p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Heart and liver T2* and R2* at 3 T show close association with 1.5 T values, but there were more artefacts at 3 T and trends to lower reproducibility causing difficulty in quantifying low T2* values with high tissue iron. Therefore T2* imaging at 1.5 T remains the gold standard for clinical practice. However, in centres where only 3 T is available, equivalent values at 1.5 T may be approximated by halving the 3 T tissue R2* with subsequent conversion to T2*.

Validation of T2* in-line analysis for tissue iron quantification at 1.5 T.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for improved worldwide access to tissue iron quantification using T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). One route to facilitate this would be simple in-line T2* analysis widely available on MR scanners. We therefore compared our clinically validated and established T2* method at Royal Brompton Hospital (RBH T2*) against a novel work-in-progress (WIP) sequence with in-line T2* measurement from Siemens (WIP T2*). METHODS: Healthy volunteers (n = 22) and patients with iron overload (n = 78) were recruited (53 males, median age 34 years). A 1.5 T study (Magnetom Avanto, Siemens) was performed on all subjects. The same mid-ventricular short axis cardiac slice and transaxial slice through the liver were used to acquire both RBH T2* images and WIP T2* maps for each participant. Cardiac white blood (WB) and black blood (BB) sequences were acquired. Intraobserver, interobserver and interstudy reproducibility were measured on the same data from a subset of 20 participants. RESULTS: Liver T2* values ranged from 0.8 to 35.7 ms (median 5.1 ms) and cardiac T2* values from 6.0 to 52.3 ms (median 31 ms). The coefficient of variance (CoV) values for direct comparison of T2* values by RBH and WIP were 6.1-7.8 % across techniques. Accurate delineation of the septum was difficult on some WIP T2* maps due to artefacts. The inability to manually correct for noise by truncation of erroneous later echo times led to some overestimation of T2* using WIP T2* compared with the RBH T2*. Reproducibility CoV results for RBH T2* ranged from 1.5 to 5.7 % which were better than the reproducibility of WIP T2* values of 4.1-16.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: Iron estimation using the T2* CMR sequence in combination with Siemens' in-line data processing is generally satisfactory and may help facilitate global access to tissue iron assessment. The current automated T2* map technique is less good for tissue iron assessment with noisy data at low T2* values.

T1 at 1.5T and 3T compared with conventional T2* at 1.5T for cardiac siderosis.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial black blood (BB) T2* relaxometry at 1.5T provides robust, reproducible and calibrated non-invasive assessment of cardiac iron burden. In vitro data has shown that like T2*, novel native Modified Look-Locker Inversion recovery (MOLLI) T1 shortens with increasing tissue iron. The relative merits of T1 and T2* are largely unexplored. We compared the established 1.5T BB T2* technique against native T1 values at 1.5T and 3T in iron overload patients and in normal volunteers. METHODS: A total of 73 subjects (42 male) were recruited, comprising 20 healthy volunteers (controls) and 53 patients (thalassemia major 22, sickle cell disease 9, hereditary hemochromatosis 9, other iron overload conditions 13). Single mid-ventricular short axis slices were acquired for BB T2* at 1.5T and MOLLI T1 quantification at 1.5T and 3T. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers, median T1 was 1014 ms (full range 939-1059 ms) at 1.5T and modestly increased to 1165ms (full range 1056-1224 ms) at 3T. All patients with significant cardiac iron overload (1.5T T2* values <20 ms) had T1 values <939 ms at 1.5T, and <1056 ms at 3T. Associations between T2* and T1 were found to be moderate with y =377 · x(0.282) at 1.5T (R(2) = 0.717), and y =406 · x(0.294) at 3T (R(2) = 0.715). Measures of reproducibility of T1 appeared superior to T2*. CONCLUSIONS: T1 mapping at 1.5T and at 3T can identify individuals with significant iron loading as defined by the current gold standard T2* at 1.5T. However, there is significant scatter between results which may reflect measurement error, but it is also possible that T1 interacts with T2*, or is differentially sensitive to aspects of iron chemistry or other biology. Hurdles to clinical implementation of T1 include the lack of calibration against human myocardial iron concentration, no demonstrated relation to cardiac outcomes, and variation in absolute T1 values between scanners, which makes inter-centre comparisons difficult. The relative merits of T1 at 3T versus T2* at 3T require further consideration.

Biopsy-based calibration of T2* magnetic resonance for estimation of liver iron concentration and comparison with R2 Ferriscan.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to standardise non-invasive measurements of liver iron concentrations (LIC) so clear inferences can be drawn about body iron levels that are associated with hepatic and extra-hepatic complications of iron overload. Since the first demonstration of an inverse relationship between biopsy LIC and liver magnetic resonance (MR) using a proof-of-concept T2* sequence, MR technology has advanced dramatically with a shorter minimum echo-time, closer inter-echo spacing and constant repetition time. These important advances allow more accurate calculation of liver T2* especially in patients with high LIC. METHODS: Here, we used an optimised liver T2* sequence calibrated against 50 liver biopsy samples on 25 patients with transfusional haemosiderosis using ordinary least squares linear regression, and assessed the method reproducibility in 96 scans over an LIC range up to 42 mg/g dry weight (dw) using Bland-Altman plots. Using mixed model linear regression we compared the new T2*-LIC with R2-LIC (Ferriscan) on 92 scans in 54 patients with transfusional haemosiderosis and examined method agreement using Bland-Altman approach. RESULTS: Strong linear correlation between ln(T2*) and ln(LIC) led to the calibration equation LIC = 31.94(T2*)-1.014. This yielded LIC values approximately 2.2 times higher than the proof-of-concept T2* method. Comparing this new T2*-LIC with the R2-LIC (Ferriscan) technique in 92 scans, we observed a close relationship between the two methods for values up to 10 mg/g dw, however the method agreement was poor. CONCLUSIONS: New calibration of T2* against liver biopsy estimates LIC in a reproducible way, correcting the proof-of-concept calibration by 2.2 times. Due to poor agreement, both methods should be used separately to diagnose or rule out liver iron overload in patients with increased ferritin.

Effect of deferiprone or deferoxamine on right ventricular function in thalassemia major patients with myocardial iron overload.

BACKGROUND: Thalassaemia major (TM) patients need regular blood transfusions that lead to accumulation of iron and death from heart failure. Deferiprone has been reported to be superior to deferoxamine for the removal of cardiac iron and improvement in left ventricular (LV) function but little is known of their relative effects on the right ventricle (RV), which is being increasingly recognised as an important prognostic factor in cardiomyopathy. Therefore data from a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing these chelators was retrospectively analysed to assess the RV responses to these drugs. METHODS: In the RCT, 61 TM patients were randomised to receive either deferiprone or deferoxamine monotherapy, and CMR scans for T2* and cardiac function were obtained. Data were re-analysed for RV volumes and function at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. RESULTS: From baseline to 12 months, deferiprone reduced RV end systolic volume (ESV) from 37.7 to 34.2 mL (p=0.008), whilst RV ejection fraction (EF) increased from 69.6 to 72.2% (p=0.001). This was associated with a 27% increase in T2* (p<0.001) and 3.1% increase in LVEF (p<0.001). By contrast, deferoxamine showed no change in RVESV (38.1 to 39.1 mL, p=0.38), or RVEF (70.0 to 69.9%, p=0.93) whereas the T2* increased by 13% (p<0.001), but with no change in LVEF (0.32%; p=0.66). Analysis of between drugs treatment effects, showed significant improvements favouring deferiprone with a mean effect on RVESV of -1.82 mL (p=0.014) and 1.16% for RVEF (p=0.009). Using regression analysis the improvement in RVEF at 12 months was shown to be greater in patients with lower baseline EF values (p<0.001), with a significant difference in RVEF of 3.5% favouring deferiprone over deferoxamine (p=0.012). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis of a prospective RCT, deferiprone monotherapy was superior to deferoxamine for improvement in RVEF and end-systolic volume. This improvement in the RV volumes and function may contribute to the improved cardiac outcomes seen with deferiprone.

Value of black blood T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

PURPOSE: To assess whether black blood T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance is superior to conventional white blood imaging of cardiac iron in patients with thalassaemia major (TM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed both conventional white blood and black blood T2* CMR sequences in 100 TM patients to determine intra and inter-observer variability and presence of artefacts. In 23 patients, 2 separate studies of both techniques were performed to assess interstudy reproducibility. RESULTS: Cardiac T2* values ranged from 4.5 to 43.8 ms. The mean T2* values were not different between black blood and white blood acquisitions (20.5 vs 21.6 ms, p=0.26). Compared with the conventional white blood diastolic acquisition, the coefficient of variance of the black blood CMR technique was superior for intra-observer reproducibility (1.47% vs 4.23%, p<0.001), inter-observer reproducibility (2.54% vs 4.50%, p<0.001) and inter-study reproducibility (4.07% vs 8.42%, p=0.001). Assessment of artefacts showed a superior score for black blood vs white blood scans (4.57 vs 4.25; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Black blood T2* CMR has superior reproducibility and reduced imaging artefacts for the assessment of cardiac iron, in comparison with the conventional white blood technique, which make it the preferred technique for clinical practice.