PURPOSE: Contrast media extravasation (CME) is an adverse reaction after administration of contrast media during CT examinations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency, management, and outcomes of extravasations and to assess the risk factors for CME in the emergency department (ED) and the ward. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at a single academic urban hospital from January 2013 to December 2015. We analyzed the medical records of all patients who experienced CME after undergoing a CT scan. We compared the patients' age, sex, underlying disease, injection site, injection flow rate, time of CT examination, type of CT examination, and severity of injury between those in the ED and the ward. RESULTS: CME occurred in 41 (0.36%) of 114767 patients, which included 16 (0.34%) in the ED and 25 (0.37%) in the ward. Both groups were more frequent in those aged older than 60 years and in female. Additionally, the abdominopelvic CT type and 2–3 mL/s as the injection rate were more common in both groups. However, CME was more frequent during the nighttime (10, 62.5%) in the ER, while it was more common in the daytime (14, 56.0%) in the ward. Severe complications were more frequent in the ER (9, 56.3%) compared with the ward (8, 32.8%). There were no significant differences in CME between the ED and the ward. When comparing the clinical manifestations in the mild and severe groups, the antecubital fossa (33.3% and 0%, respectively; p = 0.013) for the injection site and abdominopelvic CT (41.7% and 82.4%, respectively; p = 0.012) and CT angiography (41.7% and 5.87%, respectively; p = 0.014) for the CT examination showed significant differences between the mild and severe groups. CONCLUSION In this study, there were no significant clinical differences in CME between the ED and ward. Thus, prevention is more important than the place of admission. Radiologists and emergency physicians should pay attention to CME in the ED because it frequently occurs at night and results in more severe complications.

Purpose: Fetal well-being is usually assessed via fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring during the antepartum period. However, the interpretation of FHR is a complex and subjective process with low reliability. This study developed a machine learning model that can classify fetal cardiotocography results as normal or abnormal. Materials and Methods: In total, 17492 fetal cardiotocography results were obtained from Ajou University Hospital and 100 fetal cardiotocography results from Czech Technical University and University Hospital in Brno. Board-certified physicians then reviewed the fetal cardiotocography results and labeled 1456 of them as gold-standard; these results were used to train and validate the model. The remaining results were used to validate the clinical effectiveness of the model with the actual outcome. Results: In a test dataset, our model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.89 and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) of 0.73 in an internal validation dataset. An average AUROC of 0.73 and average AUPRC of 0.40 were achieved in the external validation dataset. Fetus abnormality score, as calculated from the continuous fetal cardiotocography results, was significantly associated with actual clinical outcomes [intrauterine growth restriction: odds ratio, 3.626 (p=0.031); Apgar score 1 min: odds ratio, 9.523 (p<0.001), Apgar score 5 min: odds ratio, 11.49 (p=0.001), and fetal distress: odds ratio, 23.09 (p<0.001)]. Conclusion The machine learning model developed in this study showed precision in classifying FHR signals. This suggests that the model can be applied to medical devices as a screening tool for monitoring fetal status.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate changes of subjective medication satisfaction and clinical benefit after once-daily paliperidone extended release (ER) in treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: In an open-label, observational, and multicenter study, 374 patients with schizophrenia who switched to paliperidone ER due to any reason were recruited. Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and visual analogue scale for sleep (VAS) were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks after treatment. We also examined the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events newly formed. RESULTS: Among 374 patients, 320 patients (76.5%) were included in the intent-to-treat analysis set. The mean dose of paliperidone ER was 5.33+/-2.31 mg/day at the initiation. At the endpoint, the mean dose of paliperidone ER was 6.68+/-3.13 mg/day. The percentages of patients satisfied with medication were changed from 40.9% at baseline to 67.8% at endpoint (p<0.001). Both CGI-S scores and VAS for daytime drowsiness were significantly decreased after 8 weeks (both p<0.0001) and mean scores of MSQ and VAS for sleep quality were improved after 8 weeks (both p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: After switching to paliperidone ER, 67.8% of patients with schizophrenia who had any reason to switch medication showed subjective satisfaction for medication and clinical improvement without significant adverse events. Regarding that medication satisfaction was associated with changes of clinical states, medication satisfaction can be used for measures for clinical scales in the treatment of schizophrenia.
Humans ; Isoxazoles ; Prospective Studies ; Pyrimidines ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Schizophrenia ; Sleep Stages ; Weights and Measures

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.