Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ.In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. Methods: An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Results: Both in vivo rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Conclusion Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.

Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ.In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. Methods: An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Results: Both in vivo rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Conclusion Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.

Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ.In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. Methods: An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Results: Both in vivo rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Conclusion Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.

Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ.In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. Methods: An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Results: Both in vivo rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Conclusion Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.

Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ.In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. Methods: An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Results: Both in vivo rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Conclusion Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.

Coinfection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with other respiratory pathogens may complicate diagnosis and treatment. Since the risk of coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is expected to increase during the influenza epidemic period, it is necessary to study the clinical course of coinfection. To our knowledge, there have been a few cases of coinfection between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus in neonates. Here, we report the clinical course of a neonate who was coinfected with the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. A 20-day-old boy born with low birth weight presented with a fever. The patient was confirmed as positive with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza B by real-time polymerase chain reaction at admission, whereas his mother was only COVID-19 positive at that time. Initial chest x-ray revealed hyperinflation and increased peribronchial markings at the right lower lung bronchus, but slightly decreased lung sounds without crackle or wheezing at admission. We administered empirical antibiotics for neonatal sepsis and oseltamivir for influenza B. On the chest x-ray follow-up, the findings showed improvement. After discharge, the patient showed a stable general condition. Children ineligible for COVID-19 vaccination who are coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and the influenza virus are more likely to develop severe symptoms. It is necessary to detect coinfections as some can be treated with antibiotics and antivirals in young infants.

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the feasibilities of magnetic resonance (MR) image-based planning using synthetic computed tomography (sCT) versus CT (pCT)-based planning in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was performed in 16 patients with prostate cancer who had been treated with helical tomotherapy. MR images were acquired using a dedicated therapy sequence; sCT images were generated using magnetic resonance for calculating attenuation (MRCAT). The three-dimensional dose distribution according to sCT was recalculated using a previously optimized plan and was compared with the doses calculated using pCT. Results: The mean planning target volume doses calculated by sCT and pCT differed by 0.65% ± 1.11% (p = 0.03). Three-dimensional gamma analysis at a 2%/2 mm dose difference/distance to agreement yielded a pass rate of 0.976 (range, 0.658 to 0.986). Conclusion The dose distribution results obtained using tomotherapy from MR-only simulations were in good agreement with the dose distribution results from simulation CT, with mean dose differences of less than 1% for target volume and normal organs in patients with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This first Korean prospective study is to evaluate the feasibility of prone breast radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery for left breast cancer patients who have relatively small breast size and we present dosimetric comparison between prone and supine positions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients underwent two computed tomography (CT) simulations in supine and prone positions. Whole breast, ipsilateral lung, heart, and left-anterior-descending coronary artery were contoured on each simulation CT images. Tangential-fields treatment plan in each position was designed with total 50 Gy in 2-Gy fractions, and then one of the positions was designated for the treatment by comparing target coverage and dose to normal organs. Also, interfractional and intrafractional motion was evaluated using portal images. RESULTS: In total 50 patients, 32 cases were decided as prone-position–beneficial group and 18 cases as supine-position–beneficial group based on dosimetric advantage. Target dose homogeneity was comparable, but target conformity in prone position was closer to optimal than in supine position. For both group, prone position significantly increased lung volume. However, heart volumewas decreased by prone position for prone-position–beneficial group but was comparable between two positions for supine-position–beneficial group. Lung and heart doses were significantly decreased by prone position for prone-position–beneficial group. However, prone position for supine-position–beneficial group increased heart dose while decreasing lung dose. Prone position showed larger interfractional motion but smaller intra-fractional motion than supine position. CONCLUSION: Prone breast radiotherapy could be beneficial to a subset of small breast patients since it substantially spared normal organs while achieving adequate target coverage.
Breast Neoplasms ; Breast ; Coronary Vessels ; Feasibility Studies ; Heart ; Humans ; Lung ; Mastectomy, Segmental ; Prone Position ; Prospective Studies ; Radiotherapy ; Supine Position ; Unilateral Breast Neoplasms

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease in children. Patients with AD experience a high rate of colonization of the skin surface by Staphylococcus aureus. Because of a skin barrier defect, there is a potential risk of staphylococcal invasive infection in patients with AD. Here, we present 2 cases of breast abscess caused by S. aureus in 2 adolescent girls with severe AD. Methicillin-sensitive S. aureus was identified from the breast abscess material. They were treated with appropriate antibiotics, however surgical drainage of the abscess was needed in case 1. Identical strains were found from the breast abscess material as well as the lesional and the nonlesional skin of the patients through matrixassisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight analysis. We characterized the differential abundance of Firmicutes phylum in patients' skin in microbiota analysis. In particular, S. aureus, a member of Firmicutes, differed significantly between the lesional and the normal-appearing skin. Our cases demonstrate the potential severity of bacterial deep tissue infection in AD and the dysbiosis of skin microbiota may be involved in inflammation in AD.
Abscess* ; Adolescent* ; Anti-Bacterial Agents ; Breast* ; Child ; Colon ; Dermatitis, Atopic* ; Drainage ; Dysbiosis ; Female* ; Firmicutes ; Humans ; Inflammation ; Mastitis ; Microbiota ; Skin ; Skin Diseases ; Staphylococcus aureus* ; Staphylococcus*

PURPOSE: In the present study, factors related to the recurrence of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in Korean patients were identified, and the prognostic factors for each age group were explored.METHODS: The subjects were 226 patients who were diagnosed with DCIS by histopathologic examination, and the effect of representative prognostic factors that are known already, including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, Ki-67 levels, and adjuvant therapy on the recurrence of DCIS was analyzed by using the Cox proportional hazard model.RESULTS: Among the 226 subjects, 11 patients underwent the recurrence of breast cancer. The average follow-up period was 52.7±23.5 months. The average age of the subjects was 50.6±9.3 years. Among the DCIS patients, the recurrence of breast cancer was significantly higher in the ER negative patients and those who have a Ki-67 level over 20%. However, the PR and HER2 status did not significantly affect breast cancer recurrence. The result also showed that only ER negative was a significant factor before the age of 50 years and that only the Ki-67 level over 20% was a significant factor to the patients 50 years of age or older.CONCLUSION: DCIS patients should be appropriately treated and managed depending on their age and clinicopathological factors to prevent the recurrence of DCIS.
Breast Neoplasms ; Breast ; Carcinoma, Ductal ; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating ; Estrogens ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor ; Receptors, Progesterone ; Recurrence