SummarySynesthesia is an unusual condition characterized by the over-binding of two or more features and the concomitant automatic and conscious experience of atypical, ancillary images or perceptions [1–3]. Previous research suggests that synesthetes display enhanced modality-specific perceptual processing [4–7], but it remains unclear whether enhanced processing contributes to conscious awareness of color photisms. In three experiments, we investigated whether grapheme-color synesthesia is characterized by enhanced cortical excitability in primary visual cortex and the role played by this hyperexcitability in the expression of synesthesia. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, we show that synesthetes display 3-fold lower phosphene thresholds than controls during stimulation of the primary visual cortex. We next used transcranial direct current stimulation to discriminate between two competing hypotheses of the role of hyperexcitability in the expression of synesthesia. We demonstrate that synesthesia can be selectively augmented with cathodal stimulation and attenuated with anodal stimulation of primary visual cortex. A control task revealed that the effect of the brain stimulation was specific to the experience of synesthesia. These results indicate that hyperexcitability acts as a source of noise in visual cortex that influences the availability of the neuronal signals underlying conscious awareness of synesthetic photisms.

Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) is a high-risk condition especially when filling pressure is raised, and earlier reports have suggested that E/e' is associated with poor outcome. However, whether E/e' predicts risk better than LVEF, which is the current standard of practice, is not known. We investigated this question in the largest and most rigorous study of MI patients so far. Methods and Results:We studied 660 patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and related E/e' to short-term mortality (in-hospital death), as well as long-term events at 2 years comprising (a) a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, and death, and (b) death alone. Short-term models were adjusted for age, sex, and LVEF. Long-term models were adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, revascularization procedure, history of MI, hypertension, renal function, drugs on discharge, and LVEF. Elevated E/e'> 15 indicated higher risk of short-term events (n = 19:7.0% (95% confidence interval 3.4-10.8%) vs. 1.0% (0.3 -2.3%); adjusted odds ratio 3.7 (1.3-10.5)). While elevated E/e' was also associated with long-term outcomes (n = 103 composite events: 15.9% (11.9% -21.4%) vs 6.8% (5.2% -8.7%), P < .001; n = 38 death events: 6.0% (3.9% -9.5%) vs 2.0% (1.3% -3.2%), P = .001), E/e' was rendered nonsignificant for long-term outcomes by multivariable adjustment (p = ns for both). LVEF, on the contrary, was a highly significant predictor in the adjusted long-term model. Conclusion:E/e' is associated with poor outcome in STEMI, but LVEF is a stronger predictor of long-term risk. K E Y W O R D S E/e', echocardiography, filling pressure, myocardial infarction S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section.

Guidelinesf romN ICE( the National Institutef or Healtha nd Clinical

With increasing use of recombinant human TSH (rhTSH) stimulation protocol in radioactive iodine-131 treatment of thyroidectomised differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), there is increasing concern regarding radiation safety during collection and processing of radioactive blood samples. Our study aims to quantify this radiation exposure in the context of current radiation guidelines to provide a practical safety framework. We analysed 45 patients prospectively referred to a tertiary centre in Singapore, who had histologically proven DTC, and who were thyroidectomised and planned for I-131 with rhTSH stimulation. Each patient received rhTSH for two consecutive days, with I-131 administered 24 h after, and a stimulated Thyroglobulin blood sample collected and processed 72 h after the last rhTSH dose. We measured radiation exposures with dosimeters. Based on the average and maximum exposure rates calculated, we extrapolated and derived the number of radioactive blood samples that could be safely collected and processed. Mean hand and body radiation exposures during venepuncture and blood processing were generally significantly higher than background radiation. Based on average exposure rates, the permissible number of blood samples that can be collected and processed is 9.09 × 103 per year (24 per day) and 8.70 × 104 per year (238 per day), respectively. This is the first study to date to extrapolate permissible thresholds that can serve as a practical guideline to the number of radioactive blood samples which can be safely collected and processed, following radioactive iodine therapy, within the limits of current radiation guidelines. Once validated, generalisations to other radioactive therapies may be considered.

AimsPrior to the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions were usually collected by patients/families in person from the CAMHS community team base. Due to social distancing measures introduced during the pandemic, face-to-face contact between staff and patients had to be minimised. This led to an increase in remote prescribing, including from home. Feedback from team doctors was that the process of following the Remote Prescribing Protocol (RPP) was taking up a significant portion of their day, preventing them from doing other clinical work.Our aim was to reduce the time taken to complete a remote prescription to pre-pandemic levels (under 15 minutes).MethodWe used PDSA methodology in this QI project: 1)Plan: Survey sent out to team duty doctors to identify the most time-consuming steps in RPP which could be safely delegated to administrative staff2)Do: Email sent requesting administrative staff clarify several details with patients/families when they request a prescription. This included the names and doses of medication, how many days they had left, where they wanted the prescription sent to (home/pharmacy) and the relevant address. If the patient usually received their repeat prescription from their GP, they were re-directed to their GP3)Study: Following the intervention above, team doctors recorded how long it took to complete a remote prescriptionResultThe average time taken to complete a prescription fell from 31 minutes (pre-intervention) to 22 minutes (post-intervention). The range of time taken also dropped from 10-241 minutes (pre-intervention) to 0-46 minutes (post-intervention). The medications taking above the average time to complete were more likely to be non-controlled drugs rather than controlled drugs (which one may typically think would be more time-consuming to write out).ConclusionWhilst we have successfully reduced the time for remote prescribing, we have not reached the target of reducing it down to less than 15 minutes (pre-pandemic timings). As part of the next PDSA cycle, we have carried out a survey to ask what barriers remain. Checking patient's notes and recent prescriptions can still be inefficient. We propose introducing an intervention whereby this can also be safety delegated to administrative staff e.g. including a copy of the most recent prescription in the request.In the future, we will continue to improve the RPP with further PDSA cycles and carry out an audit on the system on a regular basis to ensure standards are met.