RESUMO
Objective@#To evaluate the prognostic implications of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with a focus on those with targetoid appearance based on the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), as well as known microvascular invasion (MVI) features. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective study included 242 patients (190 male; mean age, 57.1 years) who underwent surgical resection of a single HCC (≤ 5 cm) as well as preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between January 2012 and March 2015. LI-RADS category was assigned, and the LR-M category was further classified into two groups according to rim arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE). The imaging features associated with MVI were also assessed. The overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and their associated factors were evaluated. @*Results@#Among the 242 HCCs, 190 (78.5%), 25 (10.3%), and 27 (11.2%) were classified as LR-4/5, LR-M with rim APHE, and LR-M without rim APHE, respectively. LR-M with rim APHE (vs. LR-4/5; hazard ratio [HR] for OS, 5.48 [p = 0.002]; HR for RFS, 2.09 [p = 0.042]) and tumor size (per cm increase; HR for OS, 6.04 [p = 0.009]; HR for RFS, 1.77 [p = 0.014]) but not MVI imaging features (p > 0.05) were independent factors associated with OS and RFS. Compared to the 5-year OS and RFS rates in the LR-4/5 group (93.9% and 66.8%, respectively), the LR-M with rim APHE group had significantly lower rates (68.0% and 45.8%, respectively, both p 0.05). @*Conclusion@#Further classification of LR-M according to the presence of rim APHE may help predict the postoperative prognosis of patients with a single HCC.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the applicability of haptic feedback using a smartwatch to the delivery of cardiac compression (CC) by professional healthcare providers. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, case-crossover, standardized simulation study of 20 medical professionals was conducted. The participants were randomly assigned into haptic-first and non-haptic-first groups. The primary outcome was an adequate rate of 100–120/min of CC. The secondary outcome was a comparison of CC rate and adequate duration between the good and bad performance groups. RESULTS: The mean interval between CCs and the number of haptic and non-haptic feedback-assisted CCs with an adequate duration were insignificant. In the subgroup analysis, both the good and bad performance groups showed a significant difference in the mean CC interval between the haptic and non-haptic feedback-assisted CC groups—good: haptic feedback-assisted (0.57–0.06) vs. non-haptic feedback-assisted (0.54–0.03), p < 0.001; bad: haptic feedback-assisted (0.57–0.07) vs. non-haptic feedback-assisted (0.58–0.18), p = 0.005—and the adequate chest compression number showed significant differences— good: haptic feedback-assisted (1,597/75.1%) vs. non-haptic feedback-assisted (1,951/92.2%), p < 0.001; bad: haptic feedbackassisted (1,341/63.5%) vs. non-haptic feedback-assisted (523/25.4%), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: A smartwatch cardiopulmonary resuscitation feedback system could not improve rescuers' CC rate. According to our subgroup analysis, participants might be aided by the device to increase the percentage of adequate compressions after one minute.