Low flow water quality in rivers; septic tank systems and high-resolution phosphorus signals

Rural point sources of phosphorus (P), including septic tank systems, provide a small part of the overall phosphorus budget to surface waters in agricultural catchments but can have a disproportionate impact on the low flow P concentration of receiving rivers. This has particular importance as the discharges are approximately constant into receiving waters and these have restricted dilution capacity during ecologically sensitive summer periods. In this study, a number of identified high impact septic systems were replaced with modern sequential batch reactors in three rural catchments during a monitoring period of 4 years. Sub-hourly P monitoring was conducted using bankside-analysers. Results show that strategic replacement of defective septic tank systems with modern systems and polishing filters decreased the low flow P concentration of one catchment stream by 0.032 mg TP L- 1 (0.018 mg TRP L- 1) over the 4 years. However two of the catchment mitigation efforts were offset by continued new-builds that increased the density of septic systems from 3.4 km- 2 to 4.6 km- 2 and 13.8 km- 2 to 17.2 km- 2 and subsequently increased low flow P concentrations. Future considerations for septic system mitigation should include catchment carrying capacity as well as technology changes.

Low-flow oxygen therapy: selecting the right device

The authors provide and overview of oxygen therapy principles, describing the indications and care requirements of three low flow oxygen therapy devices and providing an algorithm for managing refractory hypoxaemia.

The Temperature and Humidity in a Low-Flow Anesthesia Workstation With and Without a Heat and Moisture Exchanger

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Clinical outcomes of patients with low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis and either preserved or reduced ejection fraction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS Our aim was to evaluate the invasive haemodynamic indices of high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with 'paradoxical' low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) (PLF-LG) and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (LEF-LG) and to compare clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among these challenging AS subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 534 symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI, 385 had a full pre-procedural right and left heart catheterization. A total of 208 patients had high-gradient severe AS [HGAS; mean gradient (MG) ≥40 mmHg], 85 had PLF-LG [MG ≤ 40 mmHg, indexed aortic valve area [iAVA] ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2), ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%], and 61 had LEF-LG (MG ≤ 40 mmHg, iAVA ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), EF ≤40%). Compared with HGAS, PLF-LG and LEF-LG had higher systemic vascular resistances (HGAS: 1912 ± 654 vs. PLF-LG 2006 ± 586 vs. LEF-LG 2216 ± 765 dyne s m(-5), P = 0.007) but lower valvulo-arterial impedances (HGAS: 7.8 ± 2.7 vs. PLF-LG 6.9 ± 1.9 vs. LEF-LG 7.7 ± 2.5 mmHg mL(-1) m(-2), P = 0.027). At 30 days, no differences in cardiac death (6.5 vs. 4.9 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.90) or death (8.4 vs. 6.1 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.88) were observed among HGAS, PLF-LG, and LEF-LG groups, respectively. At 1 year, New York Heart Association functional improvement occurred in most surviving patients (HGAS: 69.2% vs. PLF-LG 71.7% vs. LEF-LG 89.3%, P = 0.09) and no significant differences in overall mortality were observed (17.6 vs. 20.5 vs. 24.5%, P = 0.67). Compared with HGAS, LEF-LG had a higher 1 year cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.75, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION TAVI in PLF-LG or LEF-LG patients is associated with overall mortality rates comparable with HGAS patients and all groups profit symptomatically to a similar extent.

A Low-Flow Self-Cleaning Drainage System for Fish Rearing Tanks

A float-stopper mechanism was designed to drain fish holding tanks directly from the bottom. Unlike traditional, top-drawn standpipe systems, it allows continuous flushing of settled solid waste. It also prevents the accumulation of these wastes between the two standpipes that are used in bottom-drawn, double-walled standpipe systems. When suspended solids are forced upward between the outer and inner standpipes of such systems, a minimum velocity must be maintained to prevent sediment accumulation. This minimum velocity determines the minimum flow rate through the tank. The system described in this report flushes well over a wide range of flow rates.

Automated low flow pump system for the treatment of refractory ascites: A multi-center safety and efficacy study

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refractory ascites (RA) affects 10% of patients with advanced cirrhosis and ascites. Usual therapy includes large volume paracentesis, and in selected patients, a transjugular portosystemic shunt (TIPS). These therapies may be associated with increased morbidity: paracentesis may induce circulatory dysfunction and impair quality of life and TIPS may induce encephalopathy and is associated with increased mortality in patients with severe liver dysfunction. We present the results of a multicenter, non-randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a new automated pump system for treatment of RA. METHODS: Forty patients at 9 centers (February 2010-June 2011) received an implanted pump for the automated removal of ascites from the peritoneal cavity into the bladder, from where it was eliminated through normal urination. Patients were followed-up for 6months. The primary study outcome was safety. Secondary outcomes included recurrence of tense ascites and pump performance. RESULTS: Surgical complications occurred early in the study and became less frequent. The pump system removed 90% of the ascites and significantly reduced the median number of large volume paracentesis per month [3.4 (range 1-6) vs. 0.2 (range 0-4); p <0.01]. Cirrhosis-related adverse events decreased along follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The automated pump seems an efficacious tool to move out ascites from the peritoneal cavity to the bladder. Its safety is still moderate, but a broad use in different countries will improve the surgical technique as well as the medical surveillance. A prospective randomized clinical trial vs. large volume paracentesis is underway to confirm these preliminary results.

Assessment of low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis: an invasive evaluation is required for decision making.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is characterised by a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient (MG) secondary to a low cardiac output and may occur in patients with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Symptomatic patients presenting with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS have a dismal prognosis independent of baseline LVEF if managed conservatively and should therefore undergo aortic valve replacement if feasible. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the first-line investigation for the assessment of AS haemodynamic severity. However, when confronted with guideline-discordant AVA (small) and MG (low) values, there are several reasons other than severe AS combined with a low cardiac output which may lead to such a situation, including erroneous measurements, small body size, inherent inconsistencies in the guidelines' criteria, prolonged ejection time and aortic pseudostenosis. The distinction between these various entities poses a diagnostic challenge. However, it is important to make a distinction because each has very different implications in terms of risk stratification and therapeutic management. In such instances, cardiac catheterisation forms an integral part of the work-up of these patients in order to confirm or refute the echocardiographic findings to guide management decisions appropriately.

State-of-the-art of imaging detecting endoleaks post-EVAR with special focus on low-flow endoleaks.

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) necessitates lifelong surveillance for the patient, in order to detect complications timely. Endoleaks (ELs) are among the most common complications of EVAR. Especially type II ELs can have a very unpredictable clinical course and this can range from spontaneous sealing to aortic rupture. Subgroups of this type of EL need to be identified in order to make a proper risk stratification. Aim of this review is to describe the existing imaging techniques, including their advantages and disadvantages in the context of post-EVAR surveillance with a particular emphasis on low-flow ELs. Low flow ELs cause pressurization of the aortic aneurysm sac with a low velocity filling, leading to difficulty of detection by routine imaging protocols for EVAR surveillance, e.g. bi- or triphasic multislice computed tomographic angiography, magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced ultrasound. In this article, we review the imaging possibilities of ELs and discuss the different imaging strategies available for depicting low flow ELs.

Clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic valve stenosis according to the assigned treatment modality

OBJECTIVES This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality. BACKGROUND The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown. METHODS Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year. RESULTS LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.