Acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) and clopidogrel are extensively used in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, the responsiveness to ASA treatment may vary among individuals. This study was conducted to investigate the profile and prevalence of ASA resistance in cardiac patients. From August 2007 to August 2008, a total of 282 cardiac patients were enrolled. Two study groups were identified: patients taking 100 mg ASA daily but without clopidogrel, and patients taking both 100 mg ASA and 75 mg clopidogrel daily. Platelet function was determined with the Multiplate analyzer to determine platelet responsiveness. Salicylate blood level was measured for all patients on ASA. Seventy-three patients (26%) were determined to be nonresponsive to ASA, and 45 patients (16%) were partially responsive, whereas 164 patients (58.2%) were responsive to ASA. Myocardial infarction and coronary obstruction were both strongly associated with ASA nonresponsiveness (p < 0.001). ASA resistance occurred more in female patients (p = 0.002). The salicylate blood level was found to be low in ASA-resistant patients (35.33 ± 50.22 mg/l) and higher in sensitive patients (54.26 ± 18.7 mg/l; p < 0.001). Quantitative assessment of platelet functions is predictive of ASA treatment failure in individual patients. Dual antiplatelet treatment with clopidogrel and ASA was found to have greater inhibitory effects on platelet aggregation than either agent alone. Non-adherence may be a significant mediator of poor outcome.

RMD gas visualization on CT is not associated with febrile morbidity, cesarean characteristics, and subsequent TOLAC results. RMD gas is a normal post-operative finding and should not lead to changes in the postpartum delivery complication management or recommendations for the future mode of delivery.

Purpose: To compare pregnancy rates in GnRH-antagonist cycles triggered with hCG after luteal phase support with intranasal GnRH agonist as sole luteal phase support versus standard vaginal progesterone preparation.Methods: Prospective randomized controlled study of patients who underwent antagonist-based IVF cycles triggered with hCG at university-a liated tertiary medical center between 2020 and 2022. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either intranasal GnRH-agonist or vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support. Pregnancy rates were the main outcome compared between the two study groups.Results: A total of 150 patients underwent 164 cycles, 127 cycles of which were included in the study cohort. Of them, 64 (50.4%) and 63 (49.6%) cycles were treated with GnRH-agonist or progesterone respectively as sole luteal phase support. A signi cantly higher pregnancy rate was demonstrated in the GnRH-agonist group compared with the progesterone group. After adjustment of several potential confounders such as age, body mass index, past obstetric history, number of IVF cycles, oocyte retrieved and embryos transferred, GnRH-agonist was still associated with a higher pregnancy rate (odds ratio 3.4, 95% con dence interval 1.4-8.3). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates were similar between the groups.Conclusions: This prospective study suggests that nasal GnRH-agonist for luteal phase support is associated with higher pregnancy rates compared with standard progesterone support in an antagonistbased protocol triggered with hCG, while maintaining a similar safety pro le. HighlightsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the rst prospective randomized study to compare between pregnancy rates of patients treated with repeated intranasal GnRH-a versus progesterone as sole LPS following GnRH-ant-based cycles triggered with hCG. Our ndings suggest that intranasal GnRH-a administration as a sole luteal support in antagonist-based IVF cycles triggered with hCG results in improved pregnancy rates in comparison with traditional irritating vaginal preparations, giving ART caregivers another medical option and further personalizing reproductive medicine.

Purpose: To compare pregnancy rates in GnRH-antagonist cycles triggered with hCG after luteal phase support with intranasal GnRH agonist as sole luteal phase support versus standard vaginal progesterone preparation. Methods: Prospective randomized controlled study of patients who underwent antagonist-based IVF cycles triggered with hCG at university-affiliated tertiary medical center between 2020 and 2022. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either intranasal GnRH-agonist or vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support. Pregnancy rates were the main outcome compared between the two study groups. Results: A total of 150 patients underwent 164 cycles, 127 cycles of which were included in the study cohort. Of them, 64 (50.4%) and 63 (49.6%) cycles were treated with GnRH-agonist or progesterone respectively as sole luteal phase support. A significantly higher pregnancy rate was demonstrated in the GnRH-agonist group compared with the progesterone group. After adjustment of several potential confounders such as age, body mass index, past obstetric history, number of IVF cycles, oocyte retrieved and embryos transferred, GnRH-agonist was still associated with a higher pregnancy rate (odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.4-8.3). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates were similar between the groups. Conclusions: This prospective study suggests that nasal GnRH-agonist for luteal phase support is associated with higher pregnancy rates compared with standard progesterone support in an antagonist-based protocol triggered with hCG, while maintaining a similar safety profile.