Inflammation risk before cardiac surgery and the treatment effect of intraoperative dexamethasone.

Patients who exhibit high systemic inflammation after cardiac surgery may benefit most from pre-emptive anti-inflammatory treatments. In this secondary analysis (n = 813) of the randomised, double-blind Intraoperative High-Dose Dexamethasone for Cardiac Surgery trial, we set out to develop an inflammation risk prediction model and assess whether patients at higher risk benefit from a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone (1 mg/kg). Inflammation risk before surgery was quantified from a linear regression model developed in the placebo arm, relating preoperatively available covariates to peak postoperative C-reactive protein. The primary endpoint was the interaction between inflammation risk and the peak postoperative C-reactive protein reduction associated with dexamethasone treatment. The impact of dexamethasone on the main clinical outcome (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure within 30 days) was also explored in relation to inflammation risk. Preoperatively available covariates explained a minority of peak postoperative C-reactive protein variation and were not suitable for clinical application (R2 = 0.058, P = 0.012); C-reactive protein before surgery (excluded above 10 mg/L) was the most predictive covariate (P < 0.001). The anti-inflammatory effect of dexamethasone increased as the inflammation risk increased (-0.689 mg/L per unit predicted peak C-reactive protein, P = 0.002 for interaction). No treatment-effect heterogeneity was detected for the main clinical outcome (P = 0.167 for interaction). Overall, risk predictions from a model of inflammation after cardiac surgery were associated with the degree of peak postoperative C-reactive protein reduction derived from dexamethasone treatment. Future work should explore the impact of this phenomenon on clinical outcomes in larger surgical populations.

Artifacts in contrast-enhanced mammography: are there differences between vendors?

PURPOSE: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) produces a dual-energy subtracted (DES) image that demonstrates iodine uptake (neovascularity) in breast tissue. We aim to review a range of artifacts on DES images produced using equipment from two different vendors and compare their incidence and subjective severity. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed CEM studies performed between September 2013 and March 2017 using GE Senographe Essential (n = 100) and Hologic Selenia Dimensions (n = 100) equipment. Artifacts were categorized and graded in severity by a subspecialist breast radiologist and one of two medical imaging technologists in consensus. The incidence of artifacts between vendors was compared by calculating the relative risk, and the severity gradings were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Elephant rind, corrugations and the black line on chest wall artifact were seen exclusively in Hologic images. Artifacts such as cloudy fat, negative rim around lesion and white line on pectoral muscle were seen in significantly more Hologic images (p < 0.05) whilst halo, ripple, skin line enhancement, black line on pectoral muscle, bright pectorals, chest wall high-lighting and air gap were seen in significantly more GE images (p < 0.05). The severity gradings for cloudy fat had a significantly higher mean rank in Hologic images (p < 0.001) whilst halo and ripple artifacts had a significantly higher mean rank in GE images (p < 0.001 and p = 0.028 respectively). CONCLUSION: The type, incidence and subjective severity of CEM-specific artifacts differ between vendors. Further research is needed, but differences in algorithms used to produce the DE image are postulated to be a significant contributor.