Cardiorespiratory responses to the 30-15 intermittent ice test

PURPOSE: In this study, the authors compared the cardiorespiratory responses between the 30-15 Intermittent Ice Test (30-15(IIT)) and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15(IFT)) in semiprofessional hockey players. METHODS: Ten players (age 24 ± 6 y) from a Swiss League B team performed the 30-15(IIT) and 30-15(IFT) in random order (13 ± 4 d between trials). Cardiorespiratory variables were measured with a portable gas analyzer. Ventilatory threshold (VT), respiratory-compensation point (RCP), and maximal speeds were measured for both tests. Peak blood lactate ([La(peak)]) was measured at 1 min postexercise. RESULTS: Compared with 30-15(IFT), 30-15(IIT) peak heart rate (HR(peak); mean ± SD 185 ± 7 vs 189 ± 10 beats/min, P = .02) and peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)); 60 ± 7 vs 62.7 ± 4 mL/min/kg, P = .02) were lower, whereas [La(peak)] was higher (10.9 ± 1 vs 8.6 ± 2 mmol/L, P < .01) for the 30-15(IIT). VT and RCP values during the 30-15(IIT) and 30-15(IFT) were similar for %HR(peak) (76.3% ± 5% vs 75.5% ± 3%, P = .53, and 90.6% ± 3% vs. 89.8% ± 3%, P = .45) and % VO(2peak) (62.3% ± 5% vs 64.2% ± 6%, P = .46, and 85.9% ± 5% vs 84.0% ± 7%, P = .33). VO(2peak ))(r = .93, P < .001), HR(peak) (r = .86, P = .001), and final velocities (r = .69, P = .029) were all largely to almost perfectly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite slightly lower maximal cardiorespiratory responses than in the field-running version of the test, the on-ice 30-15(IIT) is of practical interest since it is a specific maximal test with a higher anaerobic component.

A flow cytometry based oligotrophic pollutant exposure test to detect bacterial growth inhibition and cell injury.

Toxicity of chemical pollutants in aquatic environments is often addressed by assays that inquire reproductive inhibition of test microorganisms, such as algae or bacteria. Those tests, however, assess growth of populations as a whole via macroscopic methods such as culture turbidity or colony-forming units. Here we use flow cytometry to interrogate the fate of individual cells in low-density populations of the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens SV3 exposed or not under oligotrophic conditions to a number of common pollutants, some of which derive from oil contamination. Cells were stained at regular time intervals during the exposure assay with fluorescent dyes that detect membrane injury (i.e., live-dead assay). Reduction of population growth rates was observed upon toxicant insult and depended on the type of toxicant. Modeling and cell staining indicate that population growth rate decrease is a combined effect of an increased number of injured cells that may or may not multiply, and live cells dividing at normal growth rates. The oligotrophic assay concept presented here could be a useful complement for existing biomarker assays in compliance with new regulations on chemical effect studies or, more specifically, for judging recovery after exposure to fluctuating toxicant conditions.

The "help" question doesn't help when screening for major depression: external validation of the three-question screening test for primary care patients managed for physical complaints.

BACKGROUND: Major depression, although frequent in primary care, is commonly hidden behind multiple physical complaints that are often the first and only reason for patient consultation. Major depression can be screened by two validated questions that are easier to use in primary care than the full DSM-IV criteria. A third question, called the "help" question, improves the specificity without apparently decreasing the sensitivity of this screening procedure. We validated the abbreviated screening procedure for major depression with and without the "help" question in primary care patients managed for a physical complaint. METHODS: This diagnostic accuracy study used data from a cohort study called SODA (for SOmatisation Depression Anxiety ) conducted by 24 general practitioners (GPs) in western Switzerland that included patients over 18 years of age with at least one physical complaint at index consultation. Major depression was identified with the full Patient Health Questionnaire. GPs were asked to screen patients for major depression with the three screening questions one year after inclusion. RESULTS: Out of 937 patients with at least one physical complaint, 751 were eligible one year after index consultation. Major depression was diagnosed in 69/724 (9.5%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the two-question method alone were 91.3% (95% confidence interval 81.4-96.4%) and 65.0% (95% confidence interval 61.2-68.6%), respectively. Adding the "help" question decreased the sensitivity (59.4% ; 95% confidence interval 47.0-70.9%) but improved the specificity (88.2% ; 95% confidence interval 85.4-90.5%) of the three-question method. CONCLUSIONS: The use of two screening questions for major depression was associated with high sensitivity and low specificity in primary care patients presenting a physical complaint. Adding the "help" question improved the specificity but clearly decreased the sensitivity; when using the "help" question; four out of ten patients with depression will be missed, compared to only one out of ten with the two-question method. Therefore, the "help" question is not useful as a screening question, but may help discussing management strategies.

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients

Introduction: Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporotic fractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition, it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramatically the risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA) has been introduced in DXA device couple years ago to ease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed. To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendation on when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate the ISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often it may change of patient management. Methods: During two months (March and April 2010), a medical questionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patient to check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population. In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine, Femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham, USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performed on the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by two trained Doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitative method of Genant. The reading had been performed when possible between L5 and T4. Results: Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52%) of them (mean age 68.2 ± 11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteria to have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence 39.4%) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sites and 31 (incidence 28.4%) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7% of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture classifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8% did not have osteoporosis nor vertebral fracture. 24.8% of the women had osteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8% of women did have osteoporosis and vertebral fracture (clinical osteoporosis). Conclusion: In conclusion, in 52% of our patients, IVA was needed according to ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patient management either by changing the type of treatment of simply by classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to be an important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yet very often used in most of the centers.

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients.

Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporotic fractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition, it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramatically the risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA) has been introduced in DXA device couple years ago to ease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed. To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendation on when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate the ISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often it may change of patient management. During two months (March and April 2010), a medical questionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patient to check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population. In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine, Femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham, USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performed on the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by two trained Doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitative method of Genant. The reading had been performed when possible between L5 and T4. Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52%) of them (mean age 68.2±11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteria to have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence 39.4%) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sites and 31 (incidence 28.4%) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7% of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture classifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8% did not have osteoporosis not vertebral fracture. 24.8% of the women had osteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8% of women did have osteoporosis but vertebral fracture (Clinical osteoporosis). In conclusion, in 52% of our patients, IVA was needed according to ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patient management either my changing the type of treatment of simply by classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to be an important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yet very often use in most of the centers.