To determine the extent of Trypanosoma cruzi infection and/or transmission in the southern Amazon region of Ecuador, three indigenous communities in the provinces of Pastaza and Morona Santiago were serosurveyed. Chagatest^TM, Immunocomb^®II and immunofluorescent (IF) assays were used. Among the 385 inhabitants examined, nine (2.34%) were seropositive for T. cruzi infection. Of the nine positive sera, four (44.4%) fall in the 10–19, one each in the 20–29, 30–39 and 40–49, and two in the 50–59 age groups. These results suggested the possible existence of an autochthonous active T. cruzi transmission in the region and provide the first serological evidence for T. cruzi infection in the southern province of Morona Santiago bordering Peru. Further studies are needed in these Amazonian provinces to ascertain the spread of T. cruzi infection in the area.

INTRODUCTION

Since earlier days of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), there has been improvement in several aspects of PCI including use of transradial approach and third generation drug-eluting stents. Despite data showing its safety, same-day discharge (SDD) PCI has not been widely practiced in our institution and country. At present, there are no published studies from the Philippines showing the safety and outcome of SDD PCI.

The primary objective of this study is to determine and compare the safety and outcomes of SDD versus overnight observation ater PCI in The Medical City from 2018 to 2021.

This was a retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was to describe and compare the clinical profile of patients who underwent same-day versus overnight observation after PCI such as age, sex, comorbidities, indication for coronary angiogram, procedure time, total dye used, stent, and drug-eluting stent used. Incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event, mortality, readmission, and access site complications were also determined at 48 hours and 30 days after PCI.

Ninety-three patients were included in the analysis. Reasons for undergoing PCI were a positive noninvasive stress test (45%), stable angina (40%), coronary artery disease (26%), and heart failure (20%). More single-vessel (60%) than multivessel (40%) PCIs were performed. The most frequently affected coronary artery was the LAD (82%), followed by right coronary artery (32%) and left circumflex artery (30%). Compared with patients who stayed longer after PCI, the SDD group had lower mean (±SD) body mass index (25.10 ± 3.12 vs 28.55 ± 4.95 kg/m2), less due to a positive noninvasive test (26% vs 51%), more who underwent a single-vessel PCI (78% vs 54%), lower median amount of injected dye (130 vs 188 mL), shorter median procedural time (74 vs 101.5 minutes), and greater use of sirolimus-eluting stent (22% vs 3%). No adverse outcome of interest was noted in any patient up to 30 days after hospital discharge.

No adverse outcome was noted with SDD PCI. Larger, prospective, randomized comparative studies are needed to ascertain its safety before recommending SDD PCI routinely.

No abstract available.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.