Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study

BACKGROUND Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality. METHODS In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups. RESULTS Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups. CONCLUSION While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.

Small Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: A Retrospective, Multicenter Rare Cancer Network Study of 107 Patients

PURPOSE Small cell carcinomas of the bladder (SCCB) account for fewer than 1% of all urinary bladder tumors. There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for SCCB. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fifteen academic Rare Cancer Network medical centers contributed SCCB cases. The eligibility criteria were as follows: pure or mixed SCC; local, locoregional, and metastatic stages; and age ≥18 years. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated from the date of diagnosis according to the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze survival as functions of clinical and therapeutic factors. RESULTS The study included 107 patients (mean [±standard deviation, SD] age, 69.6 [±10.6] years; mean follow-up time, 4.4 years) with primary bladder SCC, with 66% of these patients having pure SCC. Seventy-two percent and 12% of the patients presented with T2-4N0M0 and T2-4N1-3M0 stages, respectively, and 16% presented with synchronous metastases. The most frequent curative treatments were radical surgery and chemotherapy, sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and radical surgery alone. The median (interquartile range, IQR) OS and DFS times were 12.9 months (IQR, 7-32 months) and 9 months (IQR, 5-23 months), respectively. The metastatic, T2-4N0M0, and T2-4N1-3M0 groups differed significantly (P=.001) in terms of median OS and DFS. In a multivariate analysis, impaired creatinine clearance (OS and DFS), clinical stage (OS and DFS), a Karnofsky performance status <80 (OS), and pure SCC histology (OS) were independent and significant adverse prognostic factors. In the patients with nonmetastatic disease, the type of treatment (ie radical surgery with or without adjuvant chemotherapy vs conservative treatment) did not significantly influence OS or DFS (P=.7). CONCLUSIONS The prognosis for SCCB remains poor. The finding that radical cystectomy did not influence DFS or OS in the patients with nonmetastatic disease suggests that conservative treatment is appropriate in this situation.

Comparative release of growth factors from PRP, PRF, and advanced-PRF

OBJECTIVES The use of platelet concentrates has gained increasing awareness in recent years for regenerative procedures in modern dentistry. The aim of the present study was to compare growth factor release over time from platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and a modernized protocol for PRF, advanced-PRF (A-PRF). MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighteen blood samples were collected from six donors (3 samples each for PRP, PRF, and A-PRF). Following preparation, samples were incubated in a plate shaker and assessed for growth factor release at 15 min, 60 min, 8 h, 1 day, 3 days, and 10 days. Thereafter, growth factor release of PDGF-AA, PDGF-AB, PDGF-BB, TGFB1, VEGF, EGF, and IGF was quantified using ELISA. RESULTS The highest reported growth factor released from platelet concentrates was PDGF-AA followed by PDGF-BB, TGFB1, VEGF, and PDGF-AB. In general, following 15-60 min incubation, PRP released significantly higher growth factors when compared to PRF and A-PRF. At later time points up to 10 days, it was routinely found that A-PRF released the highest total growth factors. Furthermore, A-PRF released significantly higher total protein accumulated over a 10-day period when compared to PRP or PRF. CONCLUSION The results from the present study indicate that the various platelet concentrates have quite different release kinetics. The advantage of PRP is the release of significantly higher proteins at earlier time points whereas PRF displayed a continual and steady release of growth factors over a 10-day period. Furthermore, in general, it was observed that the new formulation of PRF (A-PRF) released significantly higher total quantities of growth factors when compared to traditional PRF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Based on these findings, PRP can be recommended for fast delivery of growth factors whereas A-PRF is better-suited for long-term release.

First-in-Human Proof-of-Concept Study: Intralesional Administration of BQ788, an Endothelin Receptor B Antagonist, to Melanoma Skin Metastases

BACKGROUND This first-in-human proof-of-concept study aimed to check whether safety and preclinical results obtained by intratumoral administration of BQ788, an endothelin receptor B (EDNRB) antagonist, can be repeated in human melanoma patients. METHODS Three patients received a single intralesional BQ788 application of 3 mg. After 3-7 days, the lesions were measured and removed for analysis. The administered dose was increased to a cumulative dosage of 8 mg in patient 4 (4 × 2.0 mg, days 0-3; lesion removed on day 4) and to 10 mg in patient 5 (3 × 3.3 mg, days 0, 3, and 10; lesion removed after 14 days). Control lesions were simultaneously treated with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). All samples were processed and analyzed without knowledge of the clinical findings. RESULTS No statistical evaluation was possible because of the number of patients (n = 5) and the variability in the mode of administration. No adverse events were observed, regardless of administered dose. All observations were in accordance with results obtained in preclinical studies. Accordingly, no difference in degree of tumor necrosis was detected between BQ788- and PBS-treated samples. In addition, both EDNRB and Ki67 showed decreased expression in patients 2 and 5 and, to a lesser extent, in patient 1. Similarly, decreased expression of EDNRB mRNA in patients 2 and 5 and of BCL2A1 and/or PARP3 in patients 2, 3, and 5 was found. Importantly, semiquantitatively scored immunohistochemistry for CD31 and CD3 revealed more blood vessels and lymphocytes, respectively, in BQ788-treated tumors of patients 2 and 4. Also, in all patients, we observed inverse correlation in expression levels between EDNRB and HIF1A. Finally, in patient 5 (the only patient treated for longer than 1 week), we observed inhibition in lesion growth, as shown by size measurement. CONCLUSION The intralesional applications of BQ788 were well tolerated and showed signs of directly and indirectly reducing the viability of melanoma cells.

How Teresa and Maria Margaretha migrated to Nordstrand: Translation of Relics and Transformation of a German Island into a Catholic Dutch enclave in the 17th century

When on 26 May 1662 the founding first stone was laid for a new church on the island Nordstrand at the coast of Schleswig, relics of Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) and of the Dutch Carmelite abbess Maria Margaretha ab Angelis (1605-1658) were inserted. This church was built for Dutch dyke builders who were called to reconstruct the island after its destruction by flood in 1634; coming from a Catholic background and from the Dutch Republic which was at war with Spain at that time, the dyke builders and their families were guaranteed religious freedom in the Lutheran duchy of Holstein. In this paper, the reasons for the choice for the Spanish mystic Teresa of Avila and for the Dutch Carmelite abbess Maria Margaretha are discussed. The latter patroness was never beatified but had died in the smell of holiness; after her death several miracles were ascribed to her. It is understandable that migrants brought relics of their appreciated holy persons who would remind them of their homeland. The paper will first shortly introduce the two patronesses of the church. In the second part, the reasons for this choice will be discussed. Behind this translation of relics not only spiritual reasons played a role. The function of the translation of the saints was first to keep up geographical and political connections with the old country (both Spain and the Netherlands), secondly to perpetuate personal-familial relationships (esp. with Maria Margaretha), thirdly to strengthen the confessional identity in a non-Catholic environment. Fourthly the transfer brought a certain model of Christian life and reform to the new place of living, which in the second part of the 17th century became marked as “Jansenist”. The paper shows the transformation of the island into an enclave of Dutch Catholic culture.