1.Acute myocardial infarction after capecitabine treatment: not always vasospasm is responsible.
Tolga Sinan GÜVENÇ ; Emel CELIKER ; Kazim Serhan OZCAN ; Erkan ILHAN ; Mehmet EREN
Chinese Medical Journal 2012;125(18):3349-3351
Capecitabine is an orally available chemotherapeutic agent that is converted to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) after absorbtion. Capecitabine and its active metabolite, 5-FU, have cardiotoxic effects with reported instances of acute coronary syndromes caused due to coronary vasospasm. However, these agents exert toxic effects on cardiovascular system and beyond vasospasm provacation. We report a 46-year-old patient diagnosed as acute inferior infarction who is treated with capecitabine for 3 months due to metastatic breast carcinoma, in whom thrombotic coronary occlusion was observed in angiography. This case demonstrates that apart from vasospasm, coronary thrombosis could be observed after capecitabine treatment, with a possible direct effect of this drug.
Capecitabine
;
Coronary Thrombosis
;
chemically induced
;
Coronary Vasospasm
;
chemically induced
;
Deoxycytidine
;
adverse effects
;
analogs & derivatives
;
therapeutic use
;
Female
;
Fluorouracil
;
adverse effects
;
analogs & derivatives
;
therapeutic use
;
Humans
;
Middle Aged
;
Myocardial Infarction
;
chemically induced
2.Lung ultrasonography in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interobserver agreement study among obstetricians
Murat YASSA ; Memis Ali MUTLU ; Pinar BIROL ; Taha Yusuf KUZAN ; Erkan KALAFAT ; Canberk USTA ; Emre YAVUZ ; Ilkhan KESKIN ; Niyazi TUG
Ultrasonography 2020;39(4):340-349
Purpose:
This study investigated interobserver agreement in lung ultrasonography (LUS) in pregnant women performed by obstetricians with different levels of expertise, with confirmation by an expert radiologist.
Methods:
This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary "Coronavirus Pandemic Hospital" in April 2020. Pregnant women suspected to have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Two blinded experienced obstetricians performed LUS on pregnant women separately and noted their scores for 14 lung zones. Following a theoretical and hands-on practical course, one experienced obstetrician, two novice obstetric residents, and an experienced radiologist blindly evaluated anonymized and randomized still images and videoclips retrospectively. Weighted Cohen's kappa and Krippendorff’s alpha tests were used to assess the interobserver agreement.
Results:
Fifty-two pregnant women were included, with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis rate of 82.7%. In total, 336 eligible still images and 115 videoclips were included in the final analysis. The overall weighted Cohen’s kappa values ranged from 0.706 to 0.912 for the 14 lung zones. There were only seven instances of major disagreement (>1 point) in the evaluation of 14 lung zones of 52 patients (n=728). The overall agreement between the radiologist and obstetricians for the still images (Krippendorff's α=0.856, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.797 to 0.915) and videoclips (Krippendorff's α=0.785; 95% CI, 0.709 to 0.861) was good.
Conclusion
The interobserver agreement between obstetricians with different levels of experience on still images and videoclips of LUS was good. Following a brief theoretical course, obstetricians' performance of LUS in pregnant women and interpretation of pre-acquired LUS images can be considered consistent.