Cuttlefish: Pushing the Limits of Graphical 3-D Printing.

This article presents Cuttlefish, a 3-D printer driver developed at the Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research IGD. Cuttlefish maximizes the reproduction quality of shape and appearance in multimaterial 3-D printing systems. It controls various printing systems and material sets, including color, transparent, and flexible materials. The article provides an overview of Cuttlefish's graphical 3-D printing pipeline and focuses on its unique features: Displaced signed distance fields for robust voxelization of objects not designed for 3-D printing, joint color and translucency reproduction, accurate color and translucency characterization, shape dithering to eliminate quantization-based staircase artifacts, and support for displacement maps and constructive solid geometry operations. The article concludes by showcasing applications of Cuttlefish in printing replacement faces for stop-motion animation, large-scale figurine production, and prosthetic eye printing.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

The management of patients with aortic regurgitation and severe left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review.

A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL electronic databases was performed. Original research articles reporting all-cause mortality following surgery in patients with aortic regurgitation and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) were identified. Nine of the 10 eligible studies were observational, single-center, retrospective analyses. Survival ranged from 86 to 100% at 30 days; 81 to 100% at 1 year and 68 to 84% at 5 years. Three studies described an improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following aortic valve replacement (AVR) of 5-14%; a fourth study reported an increase in mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 9% in patients undergoing isolated AVR but not when AVR was combined with coronary artery bypass graft and/or mitral valve surgery. Three studies demonstrated improvements in functional New York Heart Association (NYHA) class following AVR. Additional studies are needed to clarify the benefits of AVR in patients with more extreme degrees of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and the potential roles of cardiac transplantation and transaortic valve implantation.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Angina: Analysis of the Irbesartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between coronary artery disease (CAD), angina, and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function (I-Preserve) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The mean follow-up period for the 4128 patients enrolled in I-Preserve was 49.5 months. Patients were divided into 4 mutually exclusive groups according to history of CAD and angina: patients with no history of CAD or angina (n=2008), patients with no history of CAD but a history of angina (n=649), patients with a history of CAD but no angina (n=468), and patients with a history of CAD and angina (n=1003); patients with no known CAD or angina were the reference group. After adjustment for other prognostic variables using Cox proportional-hazard models, patients with CAD but no angina were found to be at higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58 [1.22-2.04]; P<0.01) and sudden death (HR, 2.12 [1.33-3.39]; P<0.01), compared with patients with no CAD or angina. Patients with CAD and angina were also at higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.29 [1.05-1.59]; P=0.02) and sudden death (HR, 1.83 [1.24-2.69]; P<0.01) compared with the same reference group and had the highest risk of unstable angina or myocardial infarction (HR, 5.84 [3.43-9.95]; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction and CAD are at higher risk of all-cause mortality and sudden death when compared with those without CAD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with angina and heart failure in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) Programme.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between angina pectoris and fatal and non-fatal clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HF-REF and HF-PEF, respectively). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 7599 patients in the CHARM program, 5408 had ischaemic heart disease; 3855 had HF-REF (ejection fraction ≤45%) and 1553 had HF-PEF. These patients were separated into three groups: no history of angina, previous angina, and current angina. Three coronary outcomes were examined: fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI); MI or hospitalization for unstable angina (UA); and MI, UA or coronary revascularization. The composite heart failure outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) was also analysed, along with its components and all-cause mortality. New York Heart Association functional class was worse in both HF-REF and HF-PEF patients with current angina compared with patients without angina (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005 respectively), despite similar clinical examination findings and ejection fraction. Patients with current angina had a higher risk of all three coronary outcomes (adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 1.8-3.1) than those without angina but did not have a higher risk of heart failure outcomes or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure current angina is associated with significantly more functional limitation and a higher risk of coronary events, across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction.