Search

Objective: Double microcatheter technique (dMC) can be the alternative to Single microcatheter technique (sMC) for challenging cases, but there is lack of studies comparing dMC to sMC especifically for small ruptured aneurysms. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of dMC to sMC in treating small (≤5 mm) and tiny (≤3 mm) ruptured aneurysms. Methods: This study focused on 91 out of 280 patients who had ruptured aneurysms and underwent either single or double microcatheter coil embolization. These patients were treated with either single or double microcatheter coil embolization. We divided the patients into two groups based on the procedural method and evaluated clinical features and outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted specifically for tiny aneurysms, comparing the two methods, and within the dMC group, we also examined whether the aneurysm was tiny or not. In addition, univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of coil packing density. Results: The mean values for most outcome measures in the dMC group were higher than those in the sMC group, but these differences did not reach statistical significance (coil packing density, 45.739% vs. 39.943%; procedural complication, 4.17% vs. 11.94%; recanalization, 8.3% vs. 10.45%; discharge discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS), 1.83 vs. 1.97). The comparison between tiny aneurysms and other sizes within the dMC group did not reveal any significant differences in terms of worse outcomes or increased risk. The only factor that significantly influenced coil packing density in the univariate logistic regression analysis was the size of the aneurysm (OR 0.309, 95% CI 0.169–0.566, p=0.000). Conclusions: The dMC proved to be a safe and viable alternative to the sMC for treating small ruptured aneurysms in challenging cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although maintenance treatment for mood disorders is important, the treatment discontinuation rate is reported to be high. This study aimed to investigate the dropout rates and associated factors in mood disorders. Methods: The patients in a mood disorder clinic (n = 535) were examined. Demographic and clinical factors, scores of psychometric scales, time to dropout from initial treatment in patients with bipolar disorder (BP) (n = 288) and depressive disorder (DD) (n = 143) were evaluated based on database of the mood disorder clinic. Results: Among the studied patients with BP and DD, 50% showed dropout in 4.05 and 2.17 years, respectively. The mean survival times were 8.90 years in bipolar disorder I (BP-I), 5.19 years in bipolar II disorder, 3.22 years in bipolar disorder not otherwise specified, 4.24 years in major depressive disorder, and 4.03 years in other depressive disorders. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model in the BP group, diagnosis BP-I was found to be significantly related to the decrease in dropout rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.22, p = 0.001); however, increased past suicide attempt number was significantly related to the increase in dropout rate (HR = 1.13, p = 0.017). In the DD group, none of anxiety disorders as comorbidity, increased scores of openness, and extraversion personality were related to the increase in dropout rate. Conclusion: Patients with BP, especially BP-I, showed a lower dropout rate as compared to patients with other mood disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the relationship between the C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR) and neurological outcomes in patients who experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and received targeted temperature management (TTM). The study found that a higher CAR after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was associated with a poor neurological outcome at 6 months in IHCA patients who underwent TTM. The article highlights the need for further research to confirm these findings and emphasizes the importance of studying CAR in relation to other medical conditions to improve patient outcomes. The study was supported by a grant and approved by the Chonnam National University Hospital Institutional Review Board. The authors have no conflicts of interest. [Extracted from the article]