RESUMO
Background: Studies on the application of deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) in pediatric computed tomography (CT) are limited and have so far been mostly based on phantom. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose of DLIR with that of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-Veo (ASiR-V) during abdominal and chest CT for the pediatric population. Methods: A pediatric phantom was used for the pilot study, and 20 children were recruited for clinical verification. The preset scan parameter noise index (NI) was 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 for the phantom study, and 8 and 13 for the clinical pediatric study. We reconstructed CT images with ASiR-V 30%, ASiR-V 70%, DLIR-M (medium) and DLIR-H (high). The regions of interest (ROI) were marked on the organs of the abdomen (liver, kidney, and subcutaneous fat) and the chest (lung, mediastinum, and spine). The CT dose index volume (CTDIvol), CT value, image noise (N), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured and calculated. The subjective image quality was assessed by 3 radiologists blindly using a 5-point scale. The dose reduction efficiency of DLIR was estimated. Results: In the phantom study, the interobserver assessment of the data measurement demonstrated good agreement [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.814 for abdomen, 0.801 for chest]. Within the same dose level, the N, SNR, and CNR were statistically different among reconstructions, while the CT value remained the same. The N increased and SNR decreased as the radiation dose decreased. The DLIR-H performed better than ASiR-V when the radiation dose was reduced, without sacrificing image quality. In the patient study, the interobserver assessment of the data measurement demonstrated good agreement (ICC =0.774 for abdomen, 0.751 for chest). DLIR-H had the highest subjective and objective scores in the abdomen. Conclusions: Application of DLIR could help to reduce radiation dose without sacrificing the image quality of pediatric CT scans. Further clinical validation is required.
RESUMO
Acrylamide has been shown to be neurotoxic. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) can alleviate acrylamide-induced synaptic injury; however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. In this study, dibutyryl-cyclic adenosine monophosphate-induced mature human neuroblastoma (NB-1) cells were exposed with 0-100 µg/mL acrylamide for 24-72 hours. Acrylamide decreased cell viability and destroyed synapses. Exposure of co-cultured NB-1 cells and Schwann cells to 0-100 µg/mL acrylamide for 48 hours resulted in upregulated expression of synapsin I and BDNF, suggesting that Schwann cells can activate self-protection of neurons. Under co-culture conditions, activation of the downstream TrkB-MAPK-Erk1/2 pathway strengthened the protective effect. Exogenous BDNF can increase expression of TrkB, Erk1/2, and synapsin I, while exogenous BDNF or the TrkB inhibitor K252a could inhibit these changes. Taken together, Schwann cells may act through the BDNF-TrkB-MAPK-Erk1/2 signaling pathway, indicating that BDNF plays an important role in this process. Therefore, exogenous BDNF may be an effective treatment strategy for acrylamide-induced nerve injury. This study was approved by the Laboratory Animal Welfare and Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Occupational Health and Poison Control, a division of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (approval No. EAWE-2017-008) on May 29, 2017.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.
