Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

BACKGROUND: The FAVOR (Comparison of Quantitative Flow Ratio Guided and Angiography Guided Percutaneous Intervention in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) III China trial demonstrated that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) lesion selection using quantitative flow ratio (QFR) measurement, a novel angiography-based approach for estimating fractional flow reserve, improved two-year clinical outcomes compared with standard angiography guidance. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of QFR-guided PCI from the perspective of the current Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: This study is a pre-specified analysis of the FAVOR III China trial, which included 3825 patients randomized between December 25, 2018, and January 19, 2020, from 26 centers in China. Patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris or those ≥72 hours post-myocardial infarction who had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis between 50% and 90% in a coronary artery with a ≥2.5 mm reference vessel diameter by visual assessment were randomized to a QFR-guided strategy or an angiography-guided strategy with 1:1 ratio. During the two-year follow-up, data were collected on clinical outcomes, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), estimated costs of index procedure hospitalization, outpatient cardiovascular medication use, and rehospitalization due to major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The primary analysis calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as the cost per MACCE avoided. An ICER of ¥10,000/MACCE event avoided was considered economically attractive in China. RESULTS: At two years, the QFR-guided group demonstrated a reduced rate of MACCE compared to the angiography-guided group (10.8% vs . 14.7%, P <0.01). Total two-year costs were similar between the groups (¥50,803 ± 21,121 vs . ¥50,685 ± 23,495, P = 0.87). The ICER for the QFR-guided strategy was ¥3055 per MACCE avoided, and the probability of QFR being economically attractive was 64% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥10,000/MACCE avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that QFR-guided PCI would become cost-saving if the cost of QFR were below ¥3682 (current cost: ¥3800). Cost-utility analysis yielded an ICER of ¥56,163 per QALY gained, with a 53% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥85,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing PCI, a QFR-guided strategy appears economically attractive compared to angiographic guidance from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03656848.
Humans ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods* ; Male ; Female ; Coronary Angiography/methods* ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Coronary Artery Disease/surgery* ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial/physiology*

Human NAD(P)H: quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) is a flavoenzyme expressed at high levels in multiple solid tumors, making it an attractive target for anticancer drugs. Bioactivatable drugs targeting NQO1, such as β-lapachone (β-lap), are currently in clinical trials for the treatment of cancer. β-Lap selectively kills NQO1-positive (NQO1⁺) cancer cells by inducing reactive oxygen species (ROS) via catalytic activation of NQO1. In this study, we demonstrated that cryptotanshinone (CTS), a naturally occurring compound, induces NQO1-dependent necrosis without affecting NQO1 activity. CTS selectively kills NQO1⁺ cancer cells by inducing NQO1-dependent necrosis. Interestingly, CTS directly binds to NQO1 but does not activate its catalytic activity. In addition, CTS enables activation of JNK1/2 and PARP, accumulation of iron and Ca²⁺, and depletion of ATP and NAD⁺. Furthermore, CTS selectively suppressed tumor growth in the NQO1⁺ xenograft models, which was reversed by NQO1 inhibitor and NQO1 shRNA. In conclusion, CTS induces NQO1-dependent necrosis via the JNK1/2/iron/PARP/NAD⁺/Ca²⁺ signaling pathway. This study demonstrates the non-enzymatic function of NQO1 in inducing cell death and provides new avenues for the design and development of NQO1-targeted anticancer drugs.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is a multifunctional protein involved in diverse cellular functions, notably DNA damage repair. Pharmacological inhibition of PARP1 has therapeutic benefits for various pathologies. Despite the increased use of PARP inhibitors, challenges persist in achieving PARP1 selectivity and effective blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration. The development of a PARP1-specific positron emission tomography (PET) radioligand is crucial for understanding disease biology and performing target occupancy studies, which may aid in the development of PARP1-specific inhibitors. In this study, we leverage the recently identified PARP1 inhibitor, AZD9574, to introduce the design and development of its ¹⁸F-isotopologue ([¹⁸F]AZD9574). Our comprehensive approach, encompassing pharmacological, cellular, autoradiographic, and in vivo PET imaging evaluations in non-human primates, demonstrates the capacity of [¹⁸F]AZD9574 to specifically bind to PARP1 and to successfully penetrate the BBB. These findings position [¹⁸F]AZD9574 as a viable molecular imaging tool, poised to facilitate the exploration of pathophysiological changes in PARP1 tissue abundance across various diseases.

Community-acquired respiratory infection is the commonest cause of sepsis presenting to emergency departments. Yet current experimental animal models simulate peritoneal sepsis with intraperitoneal (I.P.) injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) as the predominant route. We aimed to compare the progression of organ injury between I.P. LPS and intranasal (I.N.) LPS in order to establish a better endotoxemia murine model of respiratory sepsis. Eight weeks old male BALB/c mice received LPS-Escherichia coli doses at 0.15, 1, 10, 20, 40 and 100 mg per kg body weight (e.g. LPS-10 is a dose of 10 mg/kg body weight). Disease severity was monitored by a modified Mouse Clinical Assessment Score for Sepsis (M-CASS; range 0–21). A M-CASS score ≥ 10 or a weight reduction of ≥ 20%, was used as a criterion for euthanasia. The primary outcome was the survival rate (either no death or no need for euthanasia). The progression of disease was specified as M-CASS, body weight, blood glucose, histopathological changes to lung, liver, spleen, kidney, brain and heart tissues. Survival rate in I.P. LPS-20 mice was 0% (2/3 died; 1/3 euthanized with M-CASS > 10) at 24 h. Survival rate in all doses of I.N. LPS was 100% (20/20; 3–4 per group) at 96 h. 24 h mean M-CASS post-I.P. LPS-10 was 6.4/21 significantly higher than I.N. LPS-10 of 1.7/21 (Unpaired t test, P < 0.05). Organ injury was present at 96 h in the I.P. LPS-10 group: lung (3/3; 100%), spleen (3/3; 100%) and liver (1/3; 33%). At 24 h in the I.P. LPS-20 group, kidney injury was observed in the euthanized mouse. At 96 h in the post-I.N. LPS-20 group, only lung injury was observed in 2/3 (67%) mice (Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s, P < 0.01). At 24 h in the post-I.N. LPS-100 group all (4/4) mice had evidence of lung injury. Variable doses of I.N. LPS in mice produced lung injury but did not produce sepsis. Higher doses of I.P. LPS induced multi-organ injury but not respiratory sepsis. Lethal models of respiratory virus, e.g., influenza A, might provide alternative avenues that can be explored in future research.

In order to guide clinical blood transfusion practices for pediatric patients, the National Health Commission has released the health standard "Guideline for pediatric transfusion" (WS/T 795-2022). Considering the physiological particularities of the neonatal period, blood transfusion practices for neonates are more complex than those for other children, the guidelines include a separate chapter dedicated to neonatal blood transfusion. This paper interprets the background and evidence for the compilation of the neonatal blood transfusion provisions, hoping to aid in the understanding and implementation of the neonatal blood transfusion section of the guidelines.
Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Blood Transfusion/standards* ; Practice Guidelines as Topic