Assessment of Computer Regulation Thermography (CRT) as a Complemetrary Diagnostic tool for Breast Cancer Patient.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women demanding accurate diagnosis to take remedial measures to treat. OBJECTIVE: Comparing the diagnostic capability of the computer regulation thermography (CRT), as a novel and safe diagnostic procedure, with common methods including sonography, mammography and clinical examinations for diagnosing breast cancer in suspicious patients against pathology as the gold standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective clinical trial study, out of 97 referred patients, 44 meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The selected patients were subjected to mammography, sonography, CRT and clinical examinations. Then, the patients showing suspicious symptoms of breast cancer underwent pathological examinations. RESULTS: CRT indicated a higher specificity compared to mammography and sonography (78.9% vs. 71.4% and 47.0%, respectively). However, CRT sensitivity was lower than those of mammography, sonography and clinical examination (52% vs. 70.6%, 82.4% and 84.0%). Furthermore, CRT accuracy was lower than mammography, sonography and clinical examination (63.6% vs. 70.9%, 64.7% and 88.6%). While CRT positive prediction value (PPV) was higher than those of mammography and sonography, it was lower than that of clinical examination (76.5% vs. 75%, 60.9% and 95.5%). The negative prediction value (NPV) of CRT was less than all other modalities (55.5% vs. 66.7%, 72.7% and 81.8% for the clinical examination, mammography and sonography, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although CRT with a lower sensitivity and higher specificity, cannot be recommended to be used as a definitive diagnostic tool for breast cancer patients, it can be used as a complementary method with other methods to increase the diagnostic accuracy of suspicious patients.

A new system to target the effect-site during propofol sedation.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated a new, integrated, covariate-adjusted, target-controlled infusion system during sedation with propofol combined with 50% nitrous oxide (N2O) and with propofol only (Air). METHODS: The protocol consisted of sequential 15-minute cycles in 20 volunteers. After a 15-minute control period, propofol was infused to an initial target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg x ml-1 (N2O) or 1.5 microg x ml-1 (Air). Subsequently, the target effect-site concentration was increased by 0.25 (N2O) or 0.5 microg x ml-1 (Air) for 15 min This sequence was continued until the volunteers lost consciousness as defined by an Observer's Assessment Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score = 2. RESULTS: Venous plasma propofol concentrations at the beginning(9 elapsed minutes) and end(15 elapsed minutes) of the pseudo-steady state period differed by only 0.00 +/- 0.16 microg x ml-1 (P = 0.78) during the N2O and 0.00 +/- 0.25 microg x ml-1 (P = 0.91) during the Air trial. OAA/S scores and bispectral index values, as surrogate measures of pharmacodynamic effect, were not different during this time in either trial. The median(25th, 75th percentiles) of the median performance error (%) was -13 (-24, -1) during the N2O and -18 (-26, -9) during the Air trial. The median absolute performance error (%) was 17 (10, 24) in the N2O and 22 (12, 28) in Air trial. The divergence (%/h) was -10 (-26, 4) in the N2O and 14 (-21, 26) in Air trial. The wobble was 7 (5, 10) in the N2O and 6 (4, 8) in the Air trial. CONCLUSIONS: When tested with venous blood samples, our TCI system for propofol, using a covariate-adjusted, integrated pharmacokinetic model to target effect-site concentrations, demonstrated a clinically acceptable accuracy and stability during mild to moderate sedation.

Automated responsiveness test and bispectral index monitoring during propofol and propofol/N2O sedation.

BACKGROUND: Sedation practice, especially when non-anaesthesia personnel are involved, requires efficient anaesthetic depth monitoring. Therefore, we used prediction probability (PK) to evaluate the performance of the bispectral index (BIS) of the EEG and automated responsiveness test (ART) to predict sedation depth and loss of subject's responsiveness during propofol sedation, with and without N2O. METHODS: Twenty volunteers were studied during propofol administration with (N2O) and without (Air) N2O. The protocol consisted of sequential 15-min cycles. After a control period, propofol was infused to a target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg/ml (N2O) or 1.5 microg/ml (Air), which was subsequently increased by 0.25 or 0.5 microg/ml, respectively, until loss of responsiveness was detected by loss of response to command [observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score

Neither nalbuphine nor atropine possess special antishivering activity.

The special antishivering action of meperidine may be mediated by its kappa or anticholinergic actions. We therefore tested the hypotheses that nalbuphine or atropine decreases the shivering threshold more than the vasoconstriction threshold. Eight volunteers were each evaluated on four separate study days: 1) control (no drug), 2) small-dose nalbuphine (0.2 microg/mL), 3) large-dose nalbuphine (0.4 microg/mL), and 4) atropine (1-mg bolus and 0.5 mg/h). Body temperature was increased until the patient sweated and then decreased until the patient shivered. Nalbuphine produced concentration-dependent decreases (mean +/- SD) in the sweating (-2.5 +/- 1.7 degrees C. microg(-1). mL; r(2) = 0.75 +/- 0.25), vasoconstriction (-2.6 +/- 1.7 degrees C. microg(-1). mL; r(2) = 0.75 +/- 0.25), and shivering (-2.8 +/- 1.7 degrees C. microg(-1). mL; r(2) = 0.79 +/- 0.23) thresholds. Atropine significantly increased the thresholds for sweating (1.0 degrees C +/- 0.4 degrees C), vasoconstriction (0.9 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C), and shivering (0.7 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C). Nalbuphine reduced the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds comparably. This differs markedly from meperidine, which impairs shivering twice as much as vasoconstriction. Atropine increased all thresholds and would thus be expected to facilitate shivering. Our results thus fail to support the theory that activation of kappa-opioid or central anticholinergic receptors contribute to meperidine's special antishivering action.

Automated responsiveness test (ART) predicts loss of consciousness and adverse physiologic responses during propofol conscious sedation.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated a device designed to provide conscious sedation with propofol (propofol-air), or propofol combined with 50% nitrous oxide (N2O; propofol-N2O). An element of this device is the automated responsiveness test (ART), a method for confirming that patients remain conscious. The authors tested the hypotheses that the ART predicts loss of consciousness and that failure to respond to the ART precedes sedation-induced respiratory or hemodynamic toxicity. METHODS: The protocol consisted of sequential 15-min cycles in 20 volunteers. After a 15-min control period, propofol was infused to an initial target effect-site concentration of 0.0 microg/ml with N2O or 1.5 microg/ml with air. Subsequently, the propofol target effect-site concentration was increased by a designated increment (0.25 and 0.5 microg/ml) and the process repeated. This sequence was continued until loss of consciousness, as defined by an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 10/20 or less, or until an adverse physiologic event was detected. RESULTS: The OAA/S score at which only 50% of the volunteers were able to respond to the ART (P50) during propofol-N2O was 11.1 of 20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-11.8); the analogous P50 was 11.8 of 20 (95% CI: 11.4-12.3) with propofol-air. Failure to respond to the ART occurred at a plasma propofol concentration of 0.7 +/- 0.6 microg/ml with propofol-N2O and 1.6 +/- 0.6 microg/ml with propofol-air, whereas loss of consciousness occurred at 1.2 +/- 0.8 microg/ml and 1.9 +/- 0.7 microg/ml, respectively. There were no false-normal ART responses. CONCLUSION: The ART can guide individual titration of propofol because failure to respond to responsiveness testing precedes loss of consciousness and is not susceptible to false-normal responses. The use of N2O with propofol for conscious sedation decreases the predictive accuracy of the ART.