McDonald, Jennifer

Contrast-enhanced MR (CE-MR) imaging is required to improve lesion detection and characterization and to increase diagnostic confidence. This study aims to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and usage patterns of recently introduced Clariscan TM (gadoterate meglumine) and other macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the central nervous system (CNS). Data was obtained from a European multicenter, prospective, observational postmarketing study that included pediatric and adult patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI with a GBCA used in routine clinical practice. Safety data was collected by spontaneous patient adverse event (AE) reporting. Effectiveness was assessed via changes in radiological diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and image quality. 766 patients with CNS-related indications were included from 8 centers across 5 European countries between December 2018 and November 2019. Clariscan (gadoterate meglumine) was used in 66% (503) of exams, Dotarem ® (gadoterate meglumine) in 20% (160), Gadovist ® (gadobutrol) in 13% (97), and ProHance ® (gadoteridol) in 1%. GBCA use increased the diagnostic confidence in 95% (724/766) of patients and a change in radiological diagnosis in 65% (501/766) of patients. The Clariscan-specific data revealed an increase in diagnostic confidence in 94% (472/503) of patients and resulted in a change in radiological diagnosis in 58% (293/503) of patients. Image quality was considered excellent or good in 95% of patients across all GBCAs and in 94% of patients who received Clariscan. No AEs were reported in this cohort including Clariscan. This data demonstrates the excellent safety and efficacy profile of Clariscan and other GBCAs used in MRI examination of the CNS.

Background Prophylactic use of inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism in trauma is controversial. The practice varies between hospitals and countries, in part due to conflicting evidence and guidelines. Purpose To compare the effects of pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis and mortality in two hospitals using prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement or prophylactic anticoagulation alone. Material and Methods Patients presenting with severe trauma were recruited from two level-1 trauma centres between January 2008 and December 2013. Recruited patients from an US hospital having prophylactic inferior vena cava filter inserted were compared to a Scandinavian hospital using prophylactic anticoagulation alone. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years, Injury Severity Score >15 and survival >24 h after hospital admission. Patients with venous thromboembolism diagnosed prior to inferior vena cava filter placement were excluded. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used with adjustment for immortal time bias and predictor variables. Results In total, 951 patients were reviewed, 282 from an US hospital having inferior vena cava filters placed and 669 from a Scandinavian hospital without inferior vena cava filters. The mean age was 45.9 vs. 47.4 years and the mean Injury Severity Score was 29.8 vs. 25.9, respectively. Inferior vena cava filter placement was not associated with the hazard of pulmonary embolism (Hazard ratio=0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12, 1.45; P=0.17) or mortality (Hazard ratio=1.16; 95% CI 0.70, 1.95; P=0.56). However, an increased rate of deep venous thrombosis was observed with inferior vena cava filters in place (Hazard ratio=3.75; 95% CI 1.68, 8.36; P=0.001). Conclusion In severely injured trauma patients, prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement was not associated with pulmonary embolism or mortality. However, inferior vena cava filters were associated with increased rate of deep venous thrombosis.

AbstractThis study investigated causal attributions and attitudes toward a hypothetical lung cancer patient. Participants included 147 undergraduate students who read 1 of 3 vignettes about a man recently diagnosed with lung cancer. The vignettes were identical except for the causal description of the patient's lung cancer (genetic, smoking, or combined). Compared with the other 2 conditions, participants in the genetic condition believed the hypothetical patient had less control and less responsibility for his illness; they also noted more pity and less anger. There were no significant differences in these variables between the smoking and combined conditions. Information about genetic information appears to trigger more positive perceptions of lung cancer patients, but only in the absence of smoking histories.