Citations

AbstractReducing the work of breathing during exercise improves locomotor muscle blood flow and reduces diaphragm and locomotor muscle fatigue and is thought to be the result of a sympathetically mediated reflex.AimThe aim of this study was to assess muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) when the work of breathing is experimentally lowered during dynamic exercise.MethodsHealthy subjects (n = 12; age = 29 ± 9 years) performed semi‐recumbent cycling trials at 40%, 60%, and 80% of peak workload. Exercise trials consisted of spontaneous breathing, reduced work of breathing (proportional assist ventilator), followed by further spontaneous breathing (post‐ventilator). MSNA was recorded from the median nerve.ResultsThere was no difference in work of breathing between PAV and post‐PAV at 40% peak work. At 60% peak work, the ventilator significantly (P < 0.05) reduced work of breathing (103 ± 39 vs 144 ± 47 J min−1), sympathetic nerve activity (35 ± 5 vs 42 ± 8 burst min−1), and (2.4 ± 0.5 vs 2.6 ± 0.5 L min−1) without influencing ventilation (86 ± 9 vs 82 ± 10 L min−1; P > 0.05), for PAV and post‐PAV respectively. During 80% peak work (n = 8), the ventilator significantly (P < 0.05) reduced work of breathing (235 ± 110 vs. 361 ± 150 J min−1), MSNA (48 ± 7 vs 54 ± 11 burst min−1), and (2.9 ± 0.6 vs 3.2 ± 0.7 L min−1) but not ventilation (121 ± 20 vs 123 ± 20 L min−1; P > 0.05), for PAV and post‐PAV respectively. There was a significant relationship between MSNA and (P < 0.0001) with a significant interaction due to the ventilator (P < 0.05).ConclusionLowering the normally occurring work of breathing during exercise results in commensurate reductions in MSNA. Our findings provide evidence of a sympathetically mediated vasoconstrictor effect emanating from respiratory muscles during exercise.

Background: Neuropsychological assessment can add essential information to the characterization of individuals presenting with the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA). Objective: This study examined the neuropsychological characteristics of lvPPA patients. We also examined differences in regional and whole brain atrophy based on neuropsychological profiles. Methods: We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis on memory, executive functioning, and visuospatial neuropsychological test data for 56 individuals with lvPPA. We then compared resultant clusters to left middle temporal, inferior parietal, and superior parietal regions-of-interest using multivariate analysis of covariance. We also performed voxel-level analyses. Results: We identified three clusters characterized as lvPPA with no neurocognitive impairment ( n = 5), lvPPA with mild neurocognitive deficits ( n = 23), and lvPPA with marked cognitive deficits ( n = 28). WAB-AQ was associated with left middle temporal volume. Superior parietal volumes were smaller for the lvPPA group with marked cognitive symptoms compared to the less severe groups. Voxel-level analyses showed greater atrophy in temporal, parietal, lateral occipital, and frontal regions, left worse than right. Age, disease duration, gender, WAB-AQ, and PiB-PET did not account for differences between groups. Conclusions: LvPPA patients without cognitive deficits in other domains were relatively uncommon while 50% of our sample exhibited pronounced neurocognitive deficits outside the language domain. Pronounced cognitive deficits in lvPPA are associated with widespread atrophy, left worse than right. Our study underscores the importance of examining neuropsychological function in addition to language in patients with lvPPA.

Abstract The American Association of Physicists in Medicine ( AAPM ) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline ( MPPG ) represents a policy statement by the AAPM , has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy ( PP )‐17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG . To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM 's MPPG s: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Introduction: Aneurysm rupture is associated with high mortality and morbidity, including both intracranial aneurysms (IA) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Despite potential preemptive treatment in those identified prior to IA or AAA rupture, the evidence for whom to screen remains limited. IA and AAA share both environmental and genetic risk, and prior cost-effectiveness models suggest the potential efficacy of screening in these high-risk individuals. We hypothesized that reciprocal screening in those presenting with IA for AAA would yield positive results. Methods: The BAAS study sought to establish the co-prevalence of IA and AAA. In this arm of BAAS, we recruited patients presenting with IA and screened them for AAA using abdominal ultrasound (aU/S) at two sites: Mayo Clinic and the University of Virginia (UVA). All participants underwent a detailed interview to collect demographic, radiographic, and clinical data. At UVA, participants also received genetic counseling. Results: At Mayo Clinic, we enrolled and screened 81 consecutive patients with aSAH (3 patients with known AAA were excluded) with 3 (3.7%) positive aU/S for AAA. At UVA, we recruited 195 consecutive patients presenting with ruptured or unruptured IA and completed screening aU/S in 178 (93%). Only one (0.6%) had an AAA. Conclusion: The lower positive screening at UVA (0.6%) which enrolled both ruptured and unruptured IA compared to the 3.7% positive results at Mayo suggests that future efforts to identify who with IA might benefit from AAA screening should focus on those with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).

Introduction: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture has a mortality rate of 64% and intracranial aneurysm (IA) rupture has a mortality rate of 50%. Despite the high mortality rates, early detection and treatment of these vascular lesions prior to rupture can prevent devastating clinical outcomes, underscoring the need to identify high-risk populations for screening. Current evidence demonstrates shared genetic and environmental risk factors for both AAA and IA. Methods: The BAAS study sought to establish the co-prevalence of AAA and IA. In one arm of BAAS, we recruited patients presenting with AAA and screened them for IA. All participants underwent a detailed interview to collect demographic, radiographic, and clinical data and also had genetic counseling. Results: Of the 126 individuals with an AAA enrolled, 65% (82/126) completed the MRA. Difficulty with logistics of obtaining the research MRA with long distance travel to clinic was the principal reason for failure to obtain MRA. We identified 20.7% (17/82) with one or more IA, including 21 aneurysms found during systematic screening. IA ranged in size from 1.5-14 mm (height) x 1.4-7 mm (width) and varied in location. 9.5% (2/21) had a maximum diameter of 7 mm or more. One participant with a positive MRA underwent early coil embolization with the remainder undergoing continued clinical surveillance. Of the 15 individuals completing the genetic counseling screening, two underwent recommended clinical genetic testing, revealing one negative screen and one variant of unknown significance in the MYH11 gene. Conclusion: Consistent with our prior cost effectiveness models, these prospective data support the clinical utility of routine screening for IA in patients presenting with AAA.