AimsTo characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiation-optimizing ‘best practices’ worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose.Methods and resultsWe conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March–April 2013. Eight ‘best practices’ relating to radiation exposure were identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more ‘best practices’ had lower EDs.ConclusionMarked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally.

No abstract

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.

Epidemiologic data have confirmed the high susceptibility of persons with Down syndrome (DS) to leukemia. The question of proneness to other kinds of cancer is still open. In this study we reassessed the incidence rates of leukemia and other malignancies in Israeli DS subjects, based on the total population. The target population consisted of all DS subjects in Israel in the period of 1948 -1995. Due to incompleteness of data, the target population was not fully achieved, thus the study population was divided into 2 subgroups: subjects born in Israel between 1979 and 1995 (registry group) and currently or past-institutionalized subjects born before 1979 (institution group). The cohort was linked with the Cancer Registry, and cancer cases that had been diagnosed through December 1995 were subsequently identified. Observed incidence rates were compared with expected rates in the general population. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for each disease category. Analyses were performed separately for each subgroup of the study population. In the registry group, 7 cancer cases were observed, compared with 1.5 expected (SIR ‫؍‬ 4.67, 95% CI 1.9 -9.6), all leukemia cases. For the institution group a total of 17 cancer cases were observed, compared with 12.8 expected. These included 4 cases of leukemia (SIR ‫؍‬ 6.90, 95% CI 1.90 -17.70). An excess of gastric cancer in male subjects (SIR ‫؍‬ 11.9, 95% CI 1.3-42