Vertebral artery stump syndrome (VASS) is a rare condition that can cause posterior circulation ischemic stroke due to occlusion of the ipsilateral vertebral artery (VA) orifice, resulting in blood flow stagnation and embolus formation. Although there is no established treatment for this condition, we observed 3 cases of VASS out of 326 acute ischemic stroke cases at a single institution from April 2021 to October 2022. Despite the best possible antithrombotic treatment, all 3 patients had recurrent ischemic strokes. One patient underwent drug-eluting stenting of the VA orifice to relieve occlusive flow. The other 2 patients received coil embolization, which resulted in the disappearance of their culprit collateral flow. None of the patients had recurrent ischemic strokes after endovascular intervention. Based on our observations, stenting and coil embolization are effective methods for preventing future recurrences of VASS.

Objective: Adverse reactions are sometimes induced by contrast media used for medical imaging and can be life-threatening. Thus, appropriate management is important for patient safety. The purpose of this study was to clarify the actual management of adverse reactions induced by contrast media in hospitals, the opportunities for intervention by hospital pharmacy departments and the attitudes of hospital pharmacists regarding the risk of adverse reactions.Methods: A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted in the pharmacy departments of 16 hospitals (approximately 200 to 1,000 beds) located in the Tokyo metropolitan area of Japan. The survey asked about the presence or absence of internal rules or manuals regarding contrast media administration at each hospital, the management status of patients with risk factors for adverse reactions, the opportunities for interventions by pharmacists, and the opportunities for discussion regarding contrast media administration among pharmacists and other professionals.Results: Of the 16 hospitals, 10 responded to the questionnaires, and 7 of them had internal rules or manuals. These rules or manuals stipulated actions such as “do not administer contrast media” to patients with risk factor(s) for adverse reactions. For inpatients, there were opportunities for pharmacist interventions, such as drug management and guidance services and initial interviews upon hospital admission. However, for outpatients the opportunities for interventions were limited. At 5 of the 10 hospitals, pharmacists discussed contrast administration with physicians, radiologists, and other healthcare professionals.Conclusion: The present study reveal that many hospitals take great care in deciding on the administration of contrast media to patients at risk of adverse drug reactions. Our results indicate that the limited opportunities for “outpatient intervention" is an issue in the hospital pharmacy department's participation for proper use of contrast media.

Objective: Contrast media side effects range from minor ones such as itching and vomiting to life-threatening ones such as hypotension and loss of consciousness. The purpose of this study was to determine how contrast media side effects are actually managed in hospitals nationwide, as well as to identify opportunities for the pharmacy department to be involved in contrast media administration, and pharmacists’ awareness of the risk of contrast media side effects. Methods: A self-administered, unmarked questionnaire survey was conducted in the pharmacy departments of 2,000 hospitals nationwide. The survey asked about the existence of internal rules and manuals regarding contrast media at each facility, how to deal with patients at risk for side effects, opportunities for intervention with patients by the pharmacy department, and opportunities for discussion among pharmacists and other professionals regarding the administration of contrast media. Results: Of the 2,000 facilities, 96 responded to the questionnaire, among which 69 had internal regulations or manuals. In those with manuals, the manuals stipulated measures such as not administering contrast media or administering premedication in the case of patients with a history of contrast media side effects. In facilities where the manual recommended premedication, it was found that premedication was administered in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Regarding the role of the pharmacy department, it was found that intervention in all items related to risk factors for adverse drug reactions was achieved for only about 10% of the outpatients. Conclusion: This study revealed that many facilities are involved in the management of contrast media side effects. The results indicate that there is scope for pharmacy departments to intervene more proactively in outpatient settings to ensure appropriate contrast media use in the future.

Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been shown to improve exercise tolerance and prognosis in patients with cardiovascular diseases, there remains low participation in outpatient CR. This may be attributed to the patients’ busy schedules and difficulty in visiting the hospital due to distance, cost, avoidance of exercise, and severity of coronary disease. To overcome these challenges, many countries are exploring the possibility of remote CR. Specifically, there is increasing attention on the development of remote CR devices, which allow transmission of vital information to the hospital via a remote CR application linked to a wearable device for telemonitoring by dedicated hospital staff. In addition, remote CR programs can support return to work after hospitalization. Previous studies have demonstrated the effects of remote CR on exercise tolerance. However, the preventive effects of remote CR on cardiac events and mortality remain controversial. Thus, safe and effective remote CR requires exercise risk stratification for each patient, telenursing by skilled staff, and multidisciplinary interventions. Therefore, quality assurance of telenursing and multi-disciplinary interventions will be essential for remote CR. Remote CR may become an important part of cardiac management in the future. However, issues such as costeffectiveness and insurance coverage still persist.

Background/Aims: Visualization of palisade vessels (PVs) in Barrett’s esophagus is crucial for proper assessment. This study aimed to determine whether red dichromatic imaging (RDI) improves PV visibility compared with white-light imaging (WLI) and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Methods: Five expert and trainee endoscopists evaluated the PV visibility in Barrett’s esophagus using WLI, NBI, and RDI on 66 images from 22 patients. Visibility was rated on a 4-point scale: 4, excellent; 3, good; 2, fair; and 1, poor. The color difference between the most recognizable PV spots and surrounding areas with undetectable blood vessels was also analyzed. Results: Mean visibility scores were 2.6±0.7, 2.3±0.6, and 3.4±0.4 for WLI, NBI, and RDI, respectively. The RDI scores were significantly higher than the WLI (p<0.001) and NBI (p<0.001) scores. These differences were recognized by trainees and expert endoscopists. Color differences in PVs were 7.74±4.96 (WLI), 10.43±5.09 (NBI), and 15.1±6.54 (RDI). The difference in RDI was significantly higher than that in WLI (p<0.001) and NBI (p=0.006). Conclusions RDI significantly improved PV visibility compared to WLI and NBI based on objective and subjective measures.

Background/Aims: Visualization of palisade vessels (PVs) in Barrett’s esophagus is crucial for proper assessment. This study aimed to determine whether red dichromatic imaging (RDI) improves PV visibility compared with white-light imaging (WLI) and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Methods: Five expert and trainee endoscopists evaluated the PV visibility in Barrett’s esophagus using WLI, NBI, and RDI on 66 images from 22 patients. Visibility was rated on a 4-point scale: 4, excellent; 3, good; 2, fair; and 1, poor. The color difference between the most recognizable PV spots and surrounding areas with undetectable blood vessels was also analyzed. Results: Mean visibility scores were 2.6±0.7, 2.3±0.6, and 3.4±0.4 for WLI, NBI, and RDI, respectively. The RDI scores were significantly higher than the WLI (p<0.001) and NBI (p<0.001) scores. These differences were recognized by trainees and expert endoscopists. Color differences in PVs were 7.74±4.96 (WLI), 10.43±5.09 (NBI), and 15.1±6.54 (RDI). The difference in RDI was significantly higher than that in WLI (p<0.001) and NBI (p=0.006). Conclusions RDI significantly improved PV visibility compared to WLI and NBI based on objective and subjective measures.

Background/Aims: Visualization of palisade vessels (PVs) in Barrett’s esophagus is crucial for proper assessment. This study aimed to determine whether red dichromatic imaging (RDI) improves PV visibility compared with white-light imaging (WLI) and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Methods: Five expert and trainee endoscopists evaluated the PV visibility in Barrett’s esophagus using WLI, NBI, and RDI on 66 images from 22 patients. Visibility was rated on a 4-point scale: 4, excellent; 3, good; 2, fair; and 1, poor. The color difference between the most recognizable PV spots and surrounding areas with undetectable blood vessels was also analyzed. Results: Mean visibility scores were 2.6±0.7, 2.3±0.6, and 3.4±0.4 for WLI, NBI, and RDI, respectively. The RDI scores were significantly higher than the WLI (p<0.001) and NBI (p<0.001) scores. These differences were recognized by trainees and expert endoscopists. Color differences in PVs were 7.74±4.96 (WLI), 10.43±5.09 (NBI), and 15.1±6.54 (RDI). The difference in RDI was significantly higher than that in WLI (p<0.001) and NBI (p=0.006). Conclusions RDI significantly improved PV visibility compared to WLI and NBI based on objective and subjective measures.