Levitra discount code

"Undocumented" immigrants are, with some exceptions for buy levitra online pregnant women and Child Health Plus, only eligible for "emergency Medicaid."NYS announced the 2020 Income and Resource levels in GIS 19 MA/12 – 2020 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates ) and levels based on the Federal Poverty Level are levitra discount code in GIS 20 MA/02 – 2020 Federal Poverty Levels Here is the 2020 HRA Income and Resources Level Chart Non-MAGI - 2020 Disabled, 65+ or Blind ("DAB" or SSI-Related) and have Medicare MAGI (2020) (<. 65, Does not have Medicare)(OR has Medicare and has dependent child <. 18 or <.

19 in school) 138% FPL*** Children levitra discount code <. 5 and pregnant women have HIGHER LIMITS than shown ESSENTIAL PLAN For MAGI-eligible people over MAGI income limit up to 200% FPL No long term care. See info here 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Income $875 (up from $859 in 201) $1284 (up from $1,267 in 2019) $1,468 $1,983 $2,498 $2,127 $2,873 Resources $15,750 (up from $15,450 in 2019) $23,100 (up from $22,800 in 2019) NO LIMIT** NO LIMIT SOURCE for 2019 figures is GIS 18 MA/015 - 2019 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates (PDF).

All of levitra discount code the attachments with the various levels are posted here. NEED TO KNOW PAST MEDICAID INCOME AND RESOURCE LEVELS?. Which household size applies?.

The rules are complicated levitra discount code. See rules here. On the HRA Medicaid Levels chart - Boxes 1 and 2 are NON-MAGI Income and Resource levels -- Age 65+, Blind or Disabled and other adults who need to use "spend-down" because they are over the MAGI income levels.

Box 10 on page 3 are the MAGI income levels -- The Affordable Care Act changed levitra discount code the rules for Medicaid income eligibility for many BUT NOT ALL New Yorkers. People in the "MAGI" category - those NOT on Medicare -- have expanded eligibility up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Line, so may now qualify for Medicaid even if they were not eligible before, or may now be eligible for Medicaid without a "spend-down." They have NO resource limit. Box 3 on page 1 is Spousal Impoverishment levels for Managed Long Term Care &.

Nursing Homes and Box 8 has the Transfer Penalty rates for nursing home eligibility Box 4 has Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities Under Age 65 (still 2017 levels til April 2018) Box 6 are Medicare Savings Program levels levitra discount code (will be updated in April 2018) MAGI INCOME LEVEL of 138% FPL applies to most adults who are not disabled and who do not have Medicare, AND can also apply to adults with Medicare if they have a dependent child/relative under age 18 or under 19 if in school. 42 C.F.R. § 435.4.

Certain populations have an levitra discount code even higher income limit - 224% FPL for pregnant women and babies <. Age 1, 154% FPL for children age 1 - 19. CAUTION.

What levitra discount code is counted as income may not be what you think. For the NON-MAGI Disabled/Aged 65+/Blind, income will still be determined by the same rules as before, explained in this outline and these charts on income disregards. However, for the MAGI population - which is virtually everyone under age 65 who is not on Medicare - their income will now be determined under new rules, based on federal income tax concepts - called "Modifed Adjusted Gross Income" (MAGI).

There are levitra discount code good changes and bad changes. GOOD. Veteran's benefits, Workers compensation, and gifts from family or others no longer count as income.

BAD levitra discount code. There is no more "spousal" or parental refusal for this population (but there still is for the Disabled/Aged/Blind.) and some other rules. For all of the rules see.

ALSO SEE 2018 Manual on Lump Sums and Impact on Public Benefits - with resource rules The income limits increase with the "household size." In other words, the income limit for a family of 5 may be higher than the income limit for a single person. HOWEVER, levitra discount code Medicaid rules about how to calculate the household size are not intuitive or even logical. There are different rules depending on the "category" of the person seeking Medicaid.

Here are the 2 basic categories and the rules for calculating their household size. People who are Disabled, Aged 65+ or Blind - "DAB" or levitra discount code "SSI-Related" Category -- NON-MAGI - See this chart for their household size. These same rules apply to the Medicare Savings Program, with some exceptions explained in this article.

Everyone else -- MAGI - All children and adults under age 65, including people with disabilities who are not yet on Medicare -- this is the new "MAGI" population. Their household size will be determined using federal income tax rules, which levitra discount code are very complicated. New rule is explained in State's directive 13 ADM-03 - Medicaid Eligibility Changes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 (PDF) pp.

8-10 of the PDF, This PowerPoint by NYLAG on MAGI Budgeting attempts to explain the new MAGI budgeting, including how to determine the Household Size. See slides levitra discount code 28-49. Also seeLegal Aid Society and Empire Justice Center materials OLD RULE used until end of 2013 -- Count the person(s) applying for Medicaid who live together, plus any of their legally responsible relatives who do not receive SNA, ADC, or SSI and reside with an applicant/recipient.

Spouses or legally responsible for one another, and parents are legally responsible for their children under age 21 (though if the child is disabled, use the rule in the 1st "DAB" category. Under this rule, a child may be excluded from the household if that child's income causes other family levitra discount code members to lose Medicaid eligibility. See 18 NYCRR 360-4.2, MRG p.

573, NYS GIS 2000 MA-007 CAUTION. Different people in the same household may be in different "categories" and hence have different household sizes AND Medicaid income levitra discount code and resource limits. If a man is age 67 and has Medicare and his wife is age 62 and not disabled or blind, the husband's household size for Medicaid is determined under Category 1/ Non-MAGI above and his wife's is under Category 2/MAGI.

The following programs were available prior to 2014, but are now discontinued because they are folded into MAGI Medicaid. Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) was Medicaid for pregnant women and children under age 19, with higher income limits for pregnant woman and infants under one year levitra discount code (200% FPL for pregnant women receiving perinatal coverage only not full Medicaid) than for children ages 1-18 (133% FPL). Medicaid for adults between ages 21-65 who are not disabled and without children under 21 in the household.

It was sometimes known as "S/CC" category for Singles and Childless Couples. This category had lower income limits than DAB/ADC-related, but had no asset limits. It did not allow "spend down" of excess income.

This category has now been subsumed under the new MAGI adult group whose limit is now raised to 138% FPL. Family Health Plus - this was an expansion of Medicaid to families with income up to 150% FPL and for childless adults up to 100% FPL. This has now been folded into the new MAGI adult group whose limit is 138% FPL.

For applicants between 138%-150% FPL, they will be eligible for a new program where Medicaid will subsidize their purchase of Qualified Health Plans on the Exchange. PAST INCOME &.

Get levitra

Levitra
Fildena extra power
Brand viagra
Best price
You need consultation
Ask your Doctor
No
Possible side effects
Online Drugstore
Indian Pharmacy
Nearby pharmacy
Can women take
No
Yes
Cheap
How long does stay in your system
10mg 60 tablet $119.95
150mg 360 tablet $575.95
100mg 60 tablet $539.95
How fast does work
No
Online
No
Duration of action
Online Drugstore
At walmart
Canadian Pharmacy

V-safe Surveillance get levitra navigate to this web-site. Local and Systemic Reactogenicity in Pregnant Persons Table 1. Table 1 get levitra. Characteristics of Persons Who Identified as Pregnant in the V-safe Surveillance System and Received an mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment.

Table 2. Table 2 get levitra. Frequency of Local and Systemic Reactions Reported on the Day after mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination in Pregnant Persons. From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.

Age distributions were similar among the participants who received the Pfizer–BioNTech treatment and those who received the Moderna treatment, with the majority of get levitra the participants being 25 to 34 years of age (61.9% and 60.6% for each treatment, respectively) and non-Hispanic White (76.2% and 75.4%, respectively). Most participants (85.8% and 87.4%, respectively) reported being pregnant at the time of vaccination (Table 1). Solicited reports of injection-site pain, fatigue, headache, and myalgia were the most frequent local and systemic reactions after either dose for both treatments (Table 2) and were reported more frequently after dose 2 for both treatments. Participant-measured temperature at or above 38°C was reported by less than 1% of the participants on day 1 after dose 1 and get levitra by 8.0% after dose 2 for both treatments.

Figure 1. Figure 1 get levitra. Most Frequent Local and Systemic Reactions Reported in the V-safe Surveillance System on the Day after mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination. Shown are solicited reactions in pregnant persons and nonpregnant women 16 to 54 years of age who received a messenger RNA (mRNA) erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) treatment — BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) — from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021.

The percentage of respondents was calculated among those who completed a day 1 survey, with the top events shown of injection-site pain (pain), fatigue or tiredness (fatigue), headache, muscle or body aches (myalgia), chills, and fever or felt feverish (fever).These patterns of reporting, with respect to both most frequently reported solicited reactions and the higher reporting of reactogenicity get levitra after dose 2, were similar to patterns observed among nonpregnant women (Figure 1). Small differences in reporting frequency between pregnant persons and nonpregnant women were observed for specific reactions (injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons, and other systemic reactions were reported more frequently among nonpregnant women), but the overall reactogenicity profile was similar. Pregnant persons did not report having severe reactions more frequently than nonpregnant women, except for nausea and vomiting, which were reported slightly more frequently only after dose 2 (Table S3). V-safe Pregnancy Registry get levitra.

Pregnancy Outcomes and Neonatal Outcomes Table 3. Table 3. Characteristics of V-safe Pregnancy Registry get levitra Participants. As of March 30, 2021, the v-safe pregnancy registry call center attempted to contact 5230 persons who were vaccinated through February 28, 2021, and who identified during a v-safe survey as pregnant at or shortly after erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination.

Of these, 912 were unreachable, 86 declined to participate, and 274 did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., were never pregnant, were pregnant but received vaccination more than get levitra 30 days before the last menstrual period, or did not provide enough information to determine eligibility). The registry enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, of whom 3719 (94.0%) identified as health care personnel. Among enrolled participants, most were 25 to 44 years of age (98.8%), non-Hispanic White (79.0%), and, at the time of interview, did not report a erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis during pregnancy (97.6%) (Table 3). Receipt of a first dose of treatment meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the get levitra second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester (1 participant was missing information to determine the timing of vaccination) (Table 3).

Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a treatment in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a treatment in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart. Limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis. Table 4 get levitra. Table 4.

Pregnancy Loss and Neonatal Outcomes in Published Studies and V-safe Pregnancy Registry Participants. Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in get levitra stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) were among persons who received their first eligible treatment dose in the third trimester. Adverse outcomes among 724 live-born infants — including 12 sets of multiple gestation — were preterm birth (60 of 636 among those vaccinated before 37 weeks [9.4%]), small size for gestational age (23 of 724 [3.2%]), and major congenital anomalies (16 of 724 [2.2%]).

No neonatal deaths were reported at the get levitra time of interview. Among the participants with completed pregnancies who reported congenital anomalies, none had received erectile dysfunction treatment in the first trimester or periconception period, and no specific pattern of congenital anomalies was observed. Calculated proportions of pregnancy get levitra and neonatal outcomes appeared similar to incidences published in the peer-reviewed literature (Table 4). Adverse-Event Findings on the VAERS During the analysis period, the VAERS received and processed 221 reports involving erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination among pregnant persons.

155 (70.1%) involved nonpregnancy-specific adverse events, and 66 (29.9%) involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events (Table S4). The most frequently reported pregnancy-related adverse events were spontaneous abortion (46 get levitra cases. 37 in the first trimester, 2 in the second trimester, and 7 in which the trimester was unknown or not reported), followed by stillbirth, premature rupture of membranes, and vaginal bleeding, with 3 reports for each. No congenital anomalies were reported to the VAERS, a requirement under the EUAs.Participants Figure 1.

Figure 1 get levitra. Enrollment and Randomization. The diagram represents all enrolled participants through November 14, 2020. The safety subset (those with a median of 2 months get levitra of follow-up, in accordance with application requirements for Emergency Use Authorization) is based on an October 9, 2020, data cut-off date.

The further procedures that one participant in the placebo group declined after dose 2 (lower right corner of the diagram) were those involving collection of blood and nasal swab samples.Table 1. Table 1 get levitra. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants in the Main Safety Population. Between July 27, 2020, and November 14, 2020, a total of 44,820 persons were screened, and 43,548 persons 16 years of age or older underwent randomization at 152 sites worldwide (United States, 130 sites.

Argentina, 1 get levitra. Brazil, 2. South Africa, 4. Germany, 6 get levitra.

And Turkey, 9) in the phase 2/3 portion of the trial. A total of 43,448 participants received injections. 21,720 received BNT162b2 and 21,728 get levitra received placebo (Figure 1). At the data cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set.

Among these 37,706 participants, 49% were female, 83% were White, 9% were Black or African American, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, 35% were obese (body mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters] of at least 30.0), and 21% had at least one coexisting condition. The median age was 52 years, and 42% of participants were older than 55 years get levitra of age (Table 1 and Table S2). Safety Local Reactogenicity Figure 2. Figure 2 get levitra.

Local and Systemic Reactions Reported within 7 Days after Injection of BNT162b2 or Placebo, According to Age Group. Data on local and systemic reactions and use of medication were collected with electronic diaries from participants in the reactogenicity subset (8,183 participants) for 7 days after each vaccination. Solicited injection-site get levitra (local) reactions are shown in Panel A. Pain at the injection site was assessed according to the following scale.

Mild, does not interfere with activity. Moderate, interferes get levitra with activity. Severe, prevents daily activity. And grade 4, emergency department visit or hospitalization.

Redness and swelling get levitra were measured according to the following scale. Mild, 2.0 to 5.0 cm in diameter. Moderate, >5.0 to 10.0 cm in diameter get levitra. Severe, >10.0 cm in diameter.

And grade 4, necrosis or exfoliative dermatitis (for redness) and necrosis (for swelling). Systemic events get levitra and medication use are shown in Panel B. Fever categories are designated in the key. Medication use was not graded.

Additional scales get levitra were as follows. Fatigue, headache, chills, new or worsened muscle pain, new or worsened joint pain (mild. Does not interfere with activity. Moderate.

Some interference with activity. Or severe. Prevents daily activity), vomiting (mild. 1 to 2 times in 24 hours.

Moderate. >2 times in 24 hours. Or severe. Requires intravenous hydration), and diarrhea (mild.

2 to 3 loose stools in 24 hours. Moderate. 4 to 5 loose stools in 24 hours. Or severe.

6 or more loose stools in 24 hours). Grade 4 for all events indicated an emergency department visit or hospitalization. Н™¸ bars represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers above the 𝙸 bars are the percentage of participants who reported the specified reaction.The reactogenicity subset included 8183 participants. Overall, BNT162b2 recipients reported more local reactions than placebo recipients.

Among BNT162b2 recipients, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after an injection was the most commonly reported local reaction, with less than 1% of participants across all age groups reporting severe pain (Figure 2). Pain was reported less frequently among participants older than 55 years of age (71% reported pain after the first dose. 66% after the second dose) than among younger participants (83% after the first dose. 78% after the second dose).

A noticeably lower percentage of participants reported injection-site redness or swelling. The proportion of participants reporting local reactions did not increase after the second dose (Figure 2A), and no participant reported a grade 4 local reaction. In general, local reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity and resolved within 1 to 2 days. Systemic Reactogenicity Systemic events were reported more often by younger treatment recipients (16 to 55 years of age) than by older treatment recipients (more than 55 years of age) in the reactogenicity subset and more often after dose 2 than dose 1 (Figure 2B).

The most commonly reported systemic events were fatigue and headache (59% and 52%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients. 51% and 39% among older recipients), although fatigue and headache were also reported by many placebo recipients (23% and 24%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients. 17% and 14% among older recipients). The frequency of any severe systemic event after the first dose was 0.9% or less.

Severe systemic events were reported in less than 2% of treatment recipients after either dose, except for fatigue (in 3.8%) and headache (in 2.0%) after the second dose. Fever (temperature, ≥38°C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger treatment recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of treatment recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9 to 40°C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose. Two participants each in the treatment and placebo groups reported temperatures above 40.0°C.

Younger treatment recipients were more likely to use antipyretic or pain medication (28% after dose 1. 45% after dose 2) than older treatment recipients (20% after dose 1. 38% after dose 2), and placebo recipients were less likely (10 to 14%) than treatment recipients to use the medications, regardless of age or dose. Systemic events including fever and chills were observed within the first 1 to 2 days after vaccination and resolved shortly thereafter.

Daily use of the electronic diary ranged from 90 to 93% for each day after the first dose and from 75 to 83% for each day after the second dose. No difference was noted between the BNT162b2 group and the placebo group. Adverse Events Adverse event analyses are provided for all enrolled 43,252 participants, with variable follow-up time after dose 1 (Table S3). More BNT162b2 recipients than placebo recipients reported any adverse event (27% and 12%, respectively) or a related adverse event (21% and 5%).

This distribution largely reflects the inclusion of transient reactogenicity events, which were reported as adverse events more commonly by treatment recipients than by placebo recipients. Sixty-four treatment recipients (0.3%) and 6 placebo recipients (<0.1%) reported lymphadenopathy. Few participants in either group had severe adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to treatment administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia).

Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the treatment or placebo. No erectile dysfunction treatment–associated deaths were observed. No stopping rules were met during the reporting period.

Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of treatment. Efficacy Table 2. Table 2. treatment Efficacy against erectile dysfunction treatment at Least 7 days after the Second Dose.

Table 3. Table 3. treatment Efficacy Overall and by Subgroup in Participants without Evidence of before 7 Days after Dose 2. Figure 3.

Figure 3. Efficacy of BNT162b2 against erectile dysfunction treatment after the First Dose. Shown is the cumulative incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment after the first dose (modified intention-to-treat population). Each symbol represents erectile dysfunction treatment cases starting on a given day.

Filled symbols represent severe erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Some symbols represent more than one case, owing to overlapping dates. The inset shows the same data on an enlarged y axis, through 21 days. Surveillance time is the total time in 1000 person-years for the given end point across all participants within each group at risk for the end point.

The time period for erectile dysfunction treatment case accrual is from the first dose to the end of the surveillance period. The confidence interval (CI) for treatment efficacy (VE) is derived according to the Clopper–Pearson method.Among 36,523 participants who had no evidence of existing or prior erectile dysfunction , 8 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 162 among placebo recipients. This case split corresponds to 95.0% treatment efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.3 to 97.6. Table 2).

Among participants with and those without evidence of prior SARS CoV-2 , 9 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 169 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.6% treatment efficacy (95% CI, 89.9 to 97.3). Supplemental analyses indicated that treatment efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population (Table 3 and Table S4). treatment efficacy among participants with hypertension was analyzed separately but was consistent with the other subgroup analyses (treatment efficacy, 94.6%. 95% CI, 68.7 to 99.9.

Case split. BNT162b2, 2 cases. Placebo, 44 cases). Figure 3 shows cases of erectile dysfunction treatment or severe erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe erectile dysfunction treatment are available in Table S5).

Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a treatment efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the treatment, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose..

V-safe Surveillance levitra discount code Can i get ventolin over the counter uk. Local and Systemic Reactogenicity in Pregnant Persons Table 1. Table 1 levitra discount code. Characteristics of Persons Who Identified as Pregnant in the V-safe Surveillance System and Received an mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment. Table 2.

Table 2 levitra discount code. Frequency of Local and Systemic Reactions Reported on the Day after mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination in Pregnant Persons. From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant. Age distributions were similar among the participants who received the Pfizer–BioNTech treatment and those who received the Moderna treatment, with the majority of the participants being 25 to 34 years of age (61.9% and 60.6% for each treatment, respectively) and non-Hispanic White (76.2% and 75.4%, respectively) levitra discount code. Most participants (85.8% and 87.4%, respectively) reported being pregnant at the time of vaccination (Table 1).

Solicited reports of injection-site pain, fatigue, headache, and myalgia were the most frequent local and systemic reactions after either dose for both treatments (Table 2) and were reported more frequently after dose 2 for both treatments. Participant-measured temperature levitra discount code at or above 38°C was reported by less than 1% of the participants on day 1 after dose 1 and by 8.0% after dose 2 for both treatments. Figure 1. Figure 1 levitra discount code. Most Frequent Local and Systemic Reactions Reported in the V-safe Surveillance System on the Day after mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination.

Shown are solicited reactions in pregnant persons and nonpregnant women 16 to 54 years of age who received a messenger RNA (mRNA) erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) treatment — BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) — from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021. The percentage of respondents was calculated among those who completed a day 1 survey, with the top events shown of injection-site pain (pain), fatigue or tiredness (fatigue), headache, muscle or body aches (myalgia), chills, and fever or felt feverish (fever).These patterns of reporting, with respect to both most frequently reported solicited reactions and the higher levitra discount code reporting of reactogenicity after dose 2, were similar to patterns observed among nonpregnant women (Figure 1). Small differences in reporting frequency between pregnant persons and nonpregnant women were observed for specific reactions (injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons, and other systemic reactions were reported more frequently among nonpregnant women), but the overall reactogenicity profile was similar. Pregnant persons did not report having severe reactions more frequently than nonpregnant women, except for nausea and vomiting, which were reported slightly more frequently only after dose 2 (Table S3). V-safe Pregnancy levitra discount code Registry.

Pregnancy Outcomes and Neonatal Outcomes Table 3. Table 3. Characteristics of levitra discount code V-safe Pregnancy Registry Participants. As of March 30, 2021, the v-safe pregnancy registry call center attempted to contact 5230 persons who were vaccinated through February 28, 2021, and who identified during a v-safe survey as pregnant at or shortly after erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination. Of these, 912 were unreachable, 86 declined to participate, and 274 did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., were never pregnant, were pregnant but received vaccination more than 30 days before the last levitra discount code menstrual period, or did not provide enough information to determine eligibility).

The registry enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, of whom 3719 (94.0%) identified as health care personnel. Among enrolled participants, most were 25 to 44 years of age (98.8%), non-Hispanic White (79.0%), and, at the time of interview, did not report a erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis during pregnancy (97.6%) (Table 3). Receipt of a first dose of treatment meeting registry-eligibility criteria was levitra discount code reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester (1 participant was missing information to determine the timing of vaccination) (Table 3). Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a treatment in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a treatment in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart. Limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.

Table 4 levitra discount code. Table 4. Pregnancy Loss and Neonatal Outcomes in Published Studies and V-safe Pregnancy Registry Participants. Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth levitra discount code in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) were among persons who received their first eligible treatment dose in the third trimester.

Adverse outcomes among 724 live-born infants — including 12 sets of multiple gestation — were preterm birth (60 of 636 among those vaccinated before 37 weeks [9.4%]), small size for gestational age (23 of 724 [3.2%]), and major congenital anomalies (16 of 724 [2.2%]). No neonatal deaths levitra discount code were reported at the time of interview. Among the participants with completed pregnancies who reported congenital anomalies, none had received erectile dysfunction treatment in the first trimester or periconception period, and no specific pattern of congenital anomalies was observed. Calculated proportions of pregnancy and neonatal levitra discount code outcomes appeared similar to incidences published in the peer-reviewed literature (Table 4). Adverse-Event Findings on the VAERS During the analysis period, the VAERS received and processed 221 reports involving erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination among pregnant persons.

155 (70.1%) involved nonpregnancy-specific adverse events, and 66 (29.9%) involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events (Table S4). The most frequently reported pregnancy-related adverse events were spontaneous abortion (46 levitra discount code cases. 37 in the first trimester, 2 in the second trimester, and 7 in which the trimester was unknown or not reported), followed by stillbirth, premature rupture of membranes, and vaginal bleeding, with 3 reports for each. No congenital anomalies were reported to the VAERS, a requirement under the EUAs.Participants Figure 1. Figure 1 levitra discount code.

Enrollment and Randomization. The diagram represents all enrolled participants through November 14, 2020. The safety subset (those with a median of 2 months of follow-up, in accordance with application requirements levitra discount code for Emergency Use Authorization) is based on an October 9, 2020, data cut-off date. The further procedures that one participant in the placebo group declined after dose 2 (lower right corner of the diagram) were those involving collection of blood and nasal swab samples.Table 1. Table 1 levitra discount code.

Demographic Characteristics of the Participants in the Main Safety Population. Between July 27, 2020, and November 14, 2020, a total of 44,820 persons were screened, and 43,548 persons 16 years of age or older underwent randomization at 152 sites worldwide (United States, 130 sites. Argentina, 1 levitra discount code. Brazil, 2. South Africa, 4.

Germany, 6 levitra discount code. And Turkey, 9) in the phase 2/3 portion of the trial. A total of 43,448 participants received injections. 21,720 received BNT162b2 and 21,728 received placebo levitra discount code (Figure 1). At the data cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set.

Among these 37,706 participants, 49% were female, 83% were White, 9% were Black or African American, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, 35% were obese (body mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters] of at least 30.0), and 21% had at least one coexisting condition. The median age was 52 years, and 42% of participants were older than 55 years of age (Table 1 and Table S2) levitra discount code. Safety Local Reactogenicity Figure 2. Figure 2 levitra discount code. Local and Systemic Reactions Reported within 7 Days after Injection of BNT162b2 or Placebo, According to Age Group.

Data on local and systemic reactions and use of medication were collected with electronic diaries from participants in the reactogenicity subset (8,183 participants) for 7 days after each vaccination. Solicited injection-site (local) reactions are shown levitra discount code in Panel A. Pain at the injection site was assessed according to the following scale. Mild, does not interfere with activity. Moderate, interferes with levitra discount code activity.

Severe, prevents daily activity. And grade 4, emergency department visit or hospitalization. Redness and swelling levitra discount code were measured according to the following scale. Mild, 2.0 to 5.0 cm in diameter. Moderate, >5.0 levitra discount code to 10.0 cm in diameter.

Severe, >10.0 cm in diameter. And grade 4, necrosis or exfoliative dermatitis (for redness) and necrosis (for swelling). Systemic events and medication use are shown in levitra discount code Panel B. Fever categories are designated in the key. Medication use was not graded.

Additional scales levitra discount code were as follows. Fatigue, headache, chills, new or worsened muscle pain, new or worsened joint pain (mild. Does not interfere with activity. Moderate. Some interference with activity.

Or severe. Prevents daily activity), vomiting (mild. 1 to 2 times in 24 hours. Moderate. >2 times in 24 hours.

Or severe. Requires intravenous hydration), and diarrhea (mild. 2 to 3 loose stools in 24 hours. Moderate. 4 to 5 loose stools in 24 hours.

Or severe. 6 or more loose stools in 24 hours). Grade 4 for all events indicated an emergency department visit or hospitalization. Н™¸ bars represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers above the 𝙸 bars are the percentage of participants who reported the specified reaction.The reactogenicity subset included 8183 participants. Overall, BNT162b2 recipients reported more local reactions than placebo recipients.

Among BNT162b2 recipients, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after an injection was the most commonly reported local reaction, with less than 1% of participants across all age groups reporting severe pain (Figure 2). Pain was reported less frequently among participants older than 55 years of age (71% reported pain after the first dose. 66% after the second dose) than among younger participants (83% after the first dose. 78% after the second dose). A noticeably lower percentage of participants reported injection-site redness or swelling.

The proportion of participants reporting local reactions did not increase after the second dose (Figure 2A), and no participant reported a grade 4 local reaction. In general, local reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity and resolved within 1 to 2 days. Systemic Reactogenicity Systemic events were reported more often by younger treatment recipients (16 to 55 years of age) than by older treatment recipients (more than 55 years of age) in the reactogenicity subset and more often after dose 2 than dose 1 (Figure 2B). The most commonly reported systemic events were fatigue and headache (59% and 52%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients. 51% and 39% among older recipients), although fatigue and headache were also reported by many placebo recipients (23% and 24%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients.

17% and 14% among older recipients). The frequency of any severe systemic event after the first dose was 0.9% or less. Severe systemic events were reported in less than 2% of treatment recipients after either dose, except for fatigue (in 3.8%) and headache (in 2.0%) after the second dose. Fever (temperature, ≥38°C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger treatment recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of treatment recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9 to 40°C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.

Two participants each in the treatment and placebo groups reported temperatures above 40.0°C. Younger treatment recipients were more likely to use antipyretic or pain medication (28% after dose 1. 45% after dose 2) than older treatment recipients (20% after dose 1. 38% after dose 2), and placebo recipients were less likely (10 to 14%) than treatment recipients to use the medications, regardless of age or dose. Systemic events including fever and chills were observed within the first 1 to 2 days after vaccination and resolved shortly thereafter.

Daily use of the electronic diary ranged from 90 to 93% for each day after the first dose and from 75 to 83% for each day after the second dose. No difference was noted between the BNT162b2 group and the placebo group. Adverse Events Adverse event analyses are provided for all enrolled 43,252 participants, with variable follow-up time after dose 1 (Table S3). More BNT162b2 recipients than placebo recipients reported any adverse event (27% and 12%, respectively) or a related adverse event (21% and 5%). This distribution largely reflects the inclusion of transient reactogenicity events, which were reported as adverse events more commonly by treatment recipients than by placebo recipients.

Sixty-four treatment recipients (0.3%) and 6 placebo recipients (<0.1%) reported lymphadenopathy. Few participants in either group had severe adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to treatment administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia). Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the treatment or placebo.

No erectile dysfunction treatment–associated deaths were observed. No stopping rules were met during the reporting period. Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of treatment. Efficacy Table 2. Table 2.

treatment Efficacy against erectile dysfunction treatment at Least 7 days after the Second Dose. Table 3. Table 3. treatment Efficacy Overall and by Subgroup in Participants without Evidence of before 7 Days after Dose 2. Figure 3.

Figure 3. Efficacy of BNT162b2 against erectile dysfunction treatment after the First Dose. Shown is the cumulative incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment after the first dose (modified intention-to-treat population). Each symbol represents erectile dysfunction treatment cases starting on a given day. Filled symbols represent severe erectile dysfunction treatment cases.

Some symbols represent more than one case, owing to overlapping dates. The inset shows the same data on an enlarged y axis, through 21 days. Surveillance time is the total time in 1000 person-years for the given end point across all participants within each group at risk for the end point. The time period for erectile dysfunction treatment case accrual is from the first dose to the end of the surveillance period. The confidence interval (CI) for treatment efficacy (VE) is derived according to the Clopper–Pearson method.Among 36,523 participants who had no evidence of existing or prior erectile dysfunction , 8 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 162 among placebo recipients.

This case split corresponds to 95.0% treatment efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.3 to 97.6. Table 2). Among participants with and those without evidence of prior SARS CoV-2 , 9 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 169 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.6% treatment efficacy (95% CI, 89.9 to 97.3). Supplemental analyses indicated that treatment efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population (Table 3 and Table S4). treatment efficacy among participants with hypertension was analyzed separately but was consistent with the other subgroup analyses (treatment efficacy, 94.6%.

95% CI, 68.7 to 99.9. Case split. BNT162b2, 2 cases. Placebo, 44 cases). Figure 3 shows cases of erectile dysfunction treatment or severe erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe erectile dysfunction treatment are available in Table S5).

Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a treatment efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the treatment, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose..

What should I watch for while taking Levitra?

If you notice any changes in your vision while taking this drug, notify your prescriber or health care professional as soon as possible. Stop using vardenafil right away if you have a loss of sight in one or both eyes. Contact your healthcare provider immediately. Contact your physician immediately if the erection lasts longer than 4 hours or if it becomes painful. This may be a sign of priapism and must be treated immediately to prevent permanent damage. If you experience symptoms of nausea, dizziness, chest pain or arm pain upon initiation of sexual activity after vardenafil use, you should refrain from further activity and should discuss the episode with your prescriber or health care professional as soon as possible. Do not change the dose of your medication. Please call your prescriber or health care professional to determine if your dose needs to be reevaluated. Using vardenafil does not protect you or your partner against HIV (the levitra that causes AIDS) or other sexually transmitted diseases.

Generic levitra vardenafil uk

Consider a scenario where, at the start of an appointment with a therapist, https://friederichsseed.com/how-to-get-ventolin-prescription she explains to you that ‘the success of the therapy will depend on your own positive expectations, the respect and esteem that you have for me as a qualified health professional, the warm tone and empathic approach that I adopt towards you, and the trust that you place in generic levitra vardenafil uk me, during the course of treatment’. You might find this transparency about the therapeutic process to be refreshingly honest generic levitra vardenafil uk. You might, however, be surprised if this openness turned out to be an ethical obligation that she owed you. Yet, for some commentators, this ‘open’ approach to psychotherapy – where there is openness about the common factors that can explain the efficacy of the therapy –is required by ethical standards of informed consent generic levitra vardenafil uk and (more generally) respect for patient autonomy.In this edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Garson Leder formulates two responses to this type of ‘open therapy claim’. That ‘….informed consent does not require the practitioners ‘go open’ about the therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and clarity about the mechanism of change shows us that…psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not deceptive…’.1 This edition also contains a comment by Charlotte Blease on Leder’s paper, and a response by Leder to Blease’s comment.

All of which makes for an engaging exchange between a proponent of, and an opponent to, open therapy.The open therapy claim stems from ‘common factors findings in psychotherapy’, specifically, the consensus that there is a set of “common factors mediate some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions”.1 These factors include:client characteristics (eg, positive expectations and hope), therapist qualities (eg, the ability to cultivate positive client characteristics), change processes (eg, the acceptance of a theoretical rationale for the therapy on offer), treatment structure (eg, the delivery of concrete treatments and techniques) and therapeutic relationship (eg, the development of a working alliance between therapist and patient).1There are, therefore, common factors that help explain the efficacy of therapy that are incidental to the generic levitra vardenafil uk theory that grounds or explains the specific psychotherapeutic intervention. Since these incidental common factors – client characteristics, therapist qualities, and the therapeutic relationship – are necessary components to a sufficient understanding of the efficacy of psychotherapy, we can appreciate why proponents of open therapy want patients to be informed of these ‘incidental’ common factors that explain why therapy works (when it does work).Leder’s response to open therapy, is to differentiate between mechanisms of change and mediators of change. The mechanisms of change amount to ‘the generic levitra vardenafil uk reasons why change occurred or how change came about’ whereas the mediators are the ‘variables that are statistically correlated with this change’.1 In Leder’s example of cognitive therapy, he explains that where a therapist seeks to address maladaptive cognitions (ie, thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions), the therapist may adopt techniques of ‘identifying and challenging maladaptive thoughts and beliefs and training patients to challenge maladaptive patterns of thought (eg, all-or-nothing thinking, catastrophising, and overgeneralisation)’.1 In order to explain the therapy, the therapist may then make a ‘theory-specific claim’ about the intervention, that it ‘works by modifying maladaptive core beliefs’.1 Leder argues that, while it remains true that the incidental common factors also explain ‘how it works’, one is a mechanism for change (that needs to be explained to the patient), the others are mediators for the change.For Blease, this will not do. Her concern is that, given the enormous difficulty in isolating and testing the ‘efficacy of the so-called specific factors of any psychological modality’, it entirely plausible that the important agents of change are the mediators themselves, and the mechanisms may even be immaterial to the efficacy of any given therapy.2 Which is why ‘ethicists have argued patients should know about them’.2 According to Blease, until basic research can ‘take up the baton’ and provide ‘a clear mechanistic explanation about how a treatment is effective’,2 psychotherapy should be open therapy.Leder’s response to the problem of isolating and testing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions is also call for openness. But it is an openness about the uncertainty that surrounds the therapeutic intervention generic levitra vardenafil uk (the mechanism) itself.

Since ‘there is currently no consensus about mechanisms of change in psychotherapy’, Leder suggests that patients need to be informed that ‘the therapy on…is based on disputed theoretical foundations’ and that ‘theory-specific techniques are not necessary for healing’.3 At dispute, therefore, is how open should open therapy be. An openness about what we know about how the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) works or an openness about what we know about how therapy (the mechanism and the mediators) works.Both Leder and generic levitra vardenafil uk Blease seem to agree on one thing, at least. They agree on the question that needs to be answered. For them, it is the ‘how does generic levitra vardenafil uk the therapy work’ question. For Leder, the answer lies in the mechanisms of change (the specific psychotherapeutic intervention).

For Blease, generic levitra vardenafil uk the answer must also include the mediators of change (the incidental common factors). Answering this question is then equated with providing informed consent. Now, if ‘explaining efficacy’ amounts generic levitra vardenafil uk to ‘providing informed consent’ then Blease might be on strong ground. But there may be a baton that needs to be taken up by ethicists. To clarify whether satisfying the ethical requirement of informed consent is the same as, or differs from, a scientific explanation of a treatment’s efficacy.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required.AbstractSeveral authors have generic levitra vardenafil uk recently argued that psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is deceptive and undermines patients’ ability to give informed consent to treatment.

This ‘deception’ claim is based on the findings that some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions are mediated by therapeutic common factors shared by successful treatments (eg, expectancy effects and therapist effects), rather than because of theory-specific techniques. These findings have led to claims that psychotherapy is, at least partly, likely generic levitra vardenafil uk a placebo, and that practitioners of psychotherapy have a duty to ‘go open’ to patients about the role of common factors in therapy (even if this risks negatively affecting the efficacy of treatment). To not ‘go open’ is supposed to unjustly restrict patients’ autonomy. This paper makes two generic levitra vardenafil uk related arguments against the ‘go open’ claim. (1) While therapies ought to provide patients with sufficient information to make informed treatment decisions, informed consent does not require that practitioners ‘go open’ about therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and (2) clarity about the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy shows us that the common-factors findings are consistent with, rather than undermining of, the truth of many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not generic levitra vardenafil uk deceptive and is not a placebo. The call to ‘go open’ should be resisted and may have serious detrimental effects on patients via the dissemination of a false view about how therapy works.psychotherapyinformed consentpaternalismethics.

Consider a scenario where, at the start of an appointment with a therapist, she explains to you that ‘the success of the therapy will depend on your own positive expectations, the respect and esteem that you have for me as a qualified health professional, the warm tone and empathic approach that I adopt towards you, levitra discount code and the trust that you place in me, during the course of treatment’. You might find levitra discount code this transparency about the therapeutic process to be refreshingly honest. You might, however, be surprised if this openness turned out to be an ethical obligation that she owed you. Yet, for some commentators, this ‘open’ approach to psychotherapy levitra discount code – where there is openness about the common factors that can explain the efficacy of the therapy –is required by ethical standards of informed consent and (more generally) respect for patient autonomy.In this edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Garson Leder formulates two responses to this type of ‘open therapy claim’. That ‘….informed consent does not require the practitioners ‘go open’ about the therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and clarity about the mechanism of change shows us that…psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not deceptive…’.1 This edition also contains a comment by Charlotte Blease on Leder’s paper, and a response by Leder to Blease’s comment.

All of which makes for an engaging exchange between a proponent of, and an opponent to, open therapy.The open therapy claim stems from ‘common factors findings in psychotherapy’, specifically, the consensus that there is a set levitra discount code of “common factors mediate some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions”.1 These factors include:client characteristics (eg, positive expectations and hope), therapist qualities (eg, the ability to cultivate positive client characteristics), change processes (eg, the acceptance of a theoretical rationale for the therapy on offer), treatment structure (eg, the delivery of concrete treatments and techniques) and therapeutic relationship (eg, the development of a working alliance between therapist and patient).1There are, therefore, common factors that help explain the efficacy of therapy that are incidental to the theory that grounds or explains the specific psychotherapeutic intervention. Since these incidental common factors – client characteristics, therapist qualities, and the therapeutic relationship – are necessary components to a sufficient understanding of the efficacy of psychotherapy, we can appreciate why proponents of open therapy want patients to be informed of these ‘incidental’ common factors that explain why therapy works (when it does work).Leder’s response to open therapy, is to differentiate between mechanisms of change and mediators of change. The mechanisms of change amount to ‘the reasons why change occurred or levitra discount code how change came about’ whereas the mediators are the ‘variables that are statistically correlated with this change’.1 In Leder’s example of cognitive therapy, he explains that where a therapist seeks to address maladaptive cognitions (ie, thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions), the therapist may adopt techniques of ‘identifying and challenging maladaptive thoughts and beliefs and training patients to challenge maladaptive patterns of thought (eg, all-or-nothing thinking, catastrophising, and overgeneralisation)’.1 In order to explain the therapy, the therapist may then make a ‘theory-specific claim’ about the intervention, that it ‘works by modifying maladaptive core beliefs’.1 Leder argues that, while it remains true that the incidental common factors also explain ‘how it works’, one is a mechanism for change (that needs to be explained to the patient), the others are mediators for the change.For Blease, this will not do. Her concern is that, given the enormous difficulty in isolating and testing the ‘efficacy of the so-called specific factors of any psychological modality’, it entirely plausible that the important agents of change are the mediators themselves, and the mechanisms may even be immaterial to the efficacy of any given therapy.2 Which is why ‘ethicists have argued patients should know about them’.2 According to Blease, until basic research can ‘take up the baton’ and provide ‘a clear mechanistic explanation about how a treatment is effective’,2 psychotherapy should be open therapy.Leder’s response to the problem of isolating and testing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions is also call for openness. But it is an openness about the uncertainty that surrounds the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) levitra discount code itself.

Since ‘there is currently no consensus about mechanisms of change in psychotherapy’, Leder suggests that patients need to be informed that ‘the therapy on…is based on disputed theoretical foundations’ and that ‘theory-specific techniques are not necessary for healing’.3 At dispute, therefore, is how open should open therapy be. An openness about what we know about levitra discount code how the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) works or an openness about what we know about how therapy (the mechanism and the mediators) works.Both Leder and Blease seem to agree on one thing, at least. They agree on the question that needs to be answered. For them, it is levitra discount code the ‘how does the therapy work’ question. For Leder, the answer lies in the mechanisms of change (the specific psychotherapeutic intervention).

For Blease, the answer must also levitra discount code include the mediators of change (the incidental common factors). Answering this question is then equated with providing informed consent. Now, if ‘explaining efficacy’ amounts to ‘providing informed levitra discount code consent’ then Blease might be on strong ground. But there may be a baton that needs to be taken up by ethicists. To clarify whether satisfying the ethical requirement of informed consent is the same as, or differs from, a scientific explanation of a treatment’s efficacy.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required.AbstractSeveral authors have recently argued that psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is deceptive and undermines patients’ ability to give levitra discount code informed consent to treatment.

This ‘deception’ claim is based on the findings that some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions are mediated by therapeutic common factors shared by successful treatments (eg, expectancy effects and therapist effects), rather than because of theory-specific techniques. These findings have led to claims that psychotherapy is, at least partly, likely a placebo, and that practitioners of psychotherapy have a duty to ‘go open’ to patients about the role of common levitra discount code factors in therapy (even if this risks negatively affecting the efficacy of treatment). To not ‘go open’ is supposed to unjustly restrict patients’ autonomy. This paper makes two levitra discount code related arguments against the ‘go open’ claim. (1) While therapies ought to provide patients with sufficient information to make informed treatment decisions, informed consent does not require that practitioners ‘go open’ about therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and (2) clarity about the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy shows us that the common-factors findings are consistent with, rather than undermining of, the truth of many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not deceptive and levitra discount code is not a placebo. The call to ‘go open’ should be resisted and may have serious detrimental effects on patients via the dissemination of a false view about how therapy works.psychotherapyinformed consentpaternalismethics.

Levitra pills online

More than lowest price levitra 90% of levitra pills online babies born with heart defects survive into adulthood. As a result, there are now more adults living with congenital heart disease than children. These adults have a chronic, lifelong condition and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has produced advice to give the levitra pills online best chance of a normal life.

The guidelines are published online today in European Heart Journal,1 and on the ESC website.2Congenital heart disease refers to any structural defect of the heart and/or great vessels (those directly connected to the heart) present at birth. Congenital heart disease affects all aspects of life, including physical and mental health, levitra pills online socialising, and work. Most patients are unable to exercise at the same level as their peers which, along with the awareness of having a chronic condition, affects mental wellbeing."Having a congenital heart disease, with a need for long-term follow-up and treatment, can also have an impact on social life, limit employment options and make it difficult to get insurance," said Professor Helmut Baumgartner, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and head of Adult Congenital and Valvular Heart Disease at the University Hospital of Münster, Germany.

"Guiding and levitra pills online supporting patients in all of these processes is an inherent part of their care."All adults with congenital heart disease should have at least one appointment at a specialist centre to determine how often they need to be seen. Teams at these centres should include specialist nurses, psychologists and social workers given that anxiety and depression are common concerns.Pregnancy is contraindicated in women with certain conditions such high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. "Pre-conception counselling is recommended for women and men to discuss the risk of the defect in offspring and the option of foetal screening," said Professor Julie De Backer, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and cardiologist and clinical geneticist at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.Concerning sports, recommendations are provided levitra pills online for each condition.

Professor De Backer said. "All adults with congenital heart disease should be encouraged to exercise, taking levitra pills online into account the nature of the underlying defect and their own abilities."The guidelines state when and how to diagnose complications. This includes proactively monitoring for arrhythmias, cardiac imaging and blood tests to detect problems with heart function.Detailed recommendations are provided on how and when to treat complications.

Arrhythmias are an important cause of sickness and death and the guidelines levitra pills online stress the importance of correct and timely referral to a specialised treatment centre. They also list when particular treatments should be considered such as ablation (a procedure to destroy heart tissue and stop faulty electrical signals) and device implantation.For several defects, there are new recommendations for catheter-based treatment. "Catheter-based treatment should be performed by levitra pills online specialists in adult congenital heart disease working within a multidisciplinary team," said Professor Baumgartner.

Story Source. Materials provided levitra pills online by European Society of Cardiology. Note.

Content may be edited for style and length.One in five patients die within a year after the most common type of levitra pills online heart attack. European Society of Cardiology (ESC) treatment guidelines for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome are published online today in European Heart Journal, and on the ESC website.Chest pain is the most common symptom, along with pain radiating to one or both arms, the neck, or jaw. Anyone experiencing these symptoms should call an ambulance immediately levitra pills online.

Complications include potentially deadly heart rhythm disorders (arrhythmias), which are another reason to seek urgent medical help.Treatment is aimed at the underlying cause. The main reason is fatty deposits (atherosclerosis) that become surrounded by a blood clot, narrowing the arteries supplying blood levitra pills online to the heart. In these cases, patients should receive blood thinners and stents to restore blood flow.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend imaging to identify other causes such as a tear in a blood vessel leading to the heart.Regarding diagnosis, there is no distinguishing change on levitra pills online the electrocardiogram (ECG), which may be normal. The key step is measuring a chemical in the blood called troponin. When blood flow levitra pills online to the heart is decreased or blocked, heart cells die, and troponin levels rise.

If levels are normal, the measurement should be repeated one hour later to rule out the diagnosis. If elevated, hospital admission is recommended to further evaluate the severity of the disease and decide the treatment strategy.Given that the main cause is related to atherosclerosis, there is a high risk of recurrence, which can levitra pills online also be deadly. Patients should be prescribed blood thinners and lipid lowering therapies.

"Equally important is a healthy lifestyle including smoking cessation, exercise, and a diet emphasising vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting saturated fat and alcohol," said Professor Jean-Philippe Collet, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and professor of cardiology, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Behavioural change and adherence levitra pills online to medication are best achieved when patients are supported by a multidisciplinary team including cardiologists, general practitioners, nurses, dietitians, physiotherapists, psychologists, and pharmacists.The likelihood of triggering another heart attack during sexual activity is low for most patients, and regular exercise decreases this risk. Healthcare providers should ask patients about sexual activity and offer advice and counselling.Annual influenza vaccination is recommended -- especially for patients aged 65 and over -- to prevent further heart attacks and increase longevity."Women should receive equal access to care, a prompt diagnosis, and treatments at the same rate and intensity as men," said Professor Holger Thiele, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and medical director, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Centre Leipzig, Germany. Story Source levitra pills online.

Materials provided by European Society of Cardiology. Note. Content may be edited for style and length.Feeling angry these days?.

New research suggests that a good night of sleep may be just what you need.This program of research comprised an analysis of diaries and lab experiments. The researchers analyzed daily diary entries from 202 college students, who tracked their sleep, daily stressors, and anger over one month. Preliminary results show that individuals reported experiencing more anger on days following less sleep than usual for them.The research team also conducted a lab experiment involving 147 community residents.

Participants were randomly assigned either to maintain their regular sleep schedule or to restrict their sleep at home by about five hours across two nights. Following this manipulation, anger was assessed during exposure to irritating noise.The experiment found that well-slept individuals adapted to noise and reported less anger after two days. In contrast, sleep-restricted individuals exhibited higher and increased anger in response to aversive noise, suggesting that losing sleep undermined emotional adaptation to frustrating circumstance.

Subjective sleepiness accounted for most of the experimental effect of sleep loss on anger. A related experiment in which individuals reported anger following an online competitive game found similar results."The results are important because they provide strong causal evidence that sleep restriction increases anger and increases frustration over time," said Zlatan Krizan, who has a doctorate in personality and social psychology and is a professor of psychology at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. "Moreover, the results from the daily diary study suggest such effects translate to everyday life, as young adults reported more anger in the afternoon on days they slept less."The authors noted that the findings highlight the importance of considering specific emotional reactions such as anger and their regulation in the context of sleep disruption.

Story Source. Materials provided by American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Note https://www.kentnagano.com/event/philharmonisches-staatsorchester-hamburg-molto-agitato-4/.

Content may be edited for style and length.Overcoming the nation's opioid epidemic will require clinicians to look beyond opioids, new research from Oregon Health &. Science University suggests.The study reveals that among patients who participated in an in-hospital addiction medicine intervention at OHSU, three-quarters came into the hospital using more than one substance. Overall, participants used fewer substances in the months after working with the hospital-based addictions team than before.The study published in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment."We found that polysubstance use is the norm," said lead author Caroline King, M.P.H., a health systems researcher and current M.D./Ph.D.

Student in the OHSU School of Medicine's biomedical engineering program. "This is important because we may need to offer additional support to patients using multiple drugs. If someone with opioid use disorder also uses alcohol or methamphetamines, we miss caring for the whole person by focusing only on their opioid use."About 40% of participants reported they had abstained from using at least one substance at least a month after discharge -- a measure of success that isn't typically tracked in health system record-keeping.Researchers enrolled 486 people seen by an addiction medicine consult service while hospitalized at OHSU Hospital between 2015 and 2018, surveying them early during their stay in the hospital and then again 30 to 90 days after discharge.

advertisement Treatment of opioid use disorder can involve medication such as buprenorphine, or Suboxone, which normalizes brain function by acting on the same target in the brain as prescription opioids or heroin.However, focusing only on the opioid addiction may not adequately address the complexity of each patient."Methamphetamine use in many parts of the U.S., including Oregon, is prominent right now," said senior author Honora Englander, M.D., associate professor of medicine (hospital medicine) in the OHSU School of Medicine. "If people are using stimulants and opioids -- and we only talk about their opioid use -- there are independent harms from stimulant use combined with opioids. People may be using methamphetamines for different reasons than they use opioids."Englander leads the in-hospital addiction service, known as Project IMPACT, or Improving Addiction Care Team.The initiative brings together physicians, social workers, peer-recovery mentors and community addiction providers to address addiction when patients are admitted to the hospital.

Since its inception in 2015, the program has served more than 1,950 people hospitalized at OHSU.The national opioid epidemic spiraled out of control following widespread prescribing of powerful pain medications beginning in the 1990s. Since then, it has often been viewed as a public health crisis afflicting rural, suburban and affluent communities that are largely white.Englander said the new study suggests that a singular focus on opioids may cause clinicians to overlook complexity of issues facing many populations, including people of color, who may also use other substances."Centering on opioids centers on whiteness," Englander said. "Understanding the complexity of people's substance use patterns is really important to honoring their experience and developing systems that support their needs."Researchers say the finding further reinforces earlier research showing that hospitalization is an important time to offer treatment to people with substance use disorder, even if they are not seeking treatment for addiction when they come to the hospital.

Story Source. Materials provided by Oregon Health &. Science University.

Original written by Erik Robinson. Note. Content may be edited for style and length.Researchers from the University of Minnesota, with support from Medtronic, have developed a groundbreaking process for multi-material 3D printing of lifelike models of the heart's aortic valve and the surrounding structures that mimic the exact look and feel of a real patient.These patient-specific organ models, which include 3D-printed soft sensor arrays integrated into the structure, are fabricated using specialized inks and a customized 3D printing process.

Such models can be used in preparation for minimally invasive procedures to improve outcomes in thousands of patients worldwide.The research is published in Science Advances, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).The researchers 3D printed what is called the aortic root, the section of the aorta closest to and attached to the heart. The aortic root consists of the aortic valve and the openings for the coronary arteries. The aortic valve has three flaps, called leaflets, surrounded by a fibrous ring.

The model also included part of the left ventricle muscle and the ascending aorta."Our goal with these 3D-printed models is to reduce medical risks and complications by providing patient-specific tools to help doctors understand the exact anatomical structure and mechanical properties of the specific patient's heart," said Michael McAlpine, a University of Minnesota mechanical engineering professor and senior researcher on the study. "Physicians can test and try the valve implants before the actual procedure. The models can also help patients better understand their own anatomy and the procedure itself."This organ model was specifically designed to help doctors prepare for a procedure called a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in which a new valve is placed inside the patient's native aortic valve.

The procedure is used to treat a condition called aortic stenosis that occurs when the heart's aortic valve narrows and prevents the valve from opening fully, which reduces or blocks blood flow from the heart into the main artery. Aortic stenosis is one of the most common cardiovascular conditions in the elderly and affects about 2.7 million adults over the age of 75 in North America. The TAVR procedure is less invasive than open heart surgery to repair the damaged valve.

advertisement The aortic root models are made by using CT scans of the patient to match the exact shape. They are then 3D printed using specialized silicone-based inks that mechanically match the feel of real heart tissue the researchers obtained from the University of Minnesota's Visible Heart Laboratories. Commercial printers currently on the market can 3D print the shape, but use inks that are often too rigid to match the softness of real heart tissue.On the flip side, the specialized 3D printers at the University of Minnesota were able to mimic both the soft tissue components of the model, as well as the hard calcification on the valve flaps by printing an ink similar to spackling paste used in construction to repair drywall and plaster.Physicians can use the models to determine the size and placement of the valve device during the procedure.

Integrated sensors that are 3D printed within the model give physicians the electronic pressure feedback that can be used to guide and optimize the selection and positioning of the valve within the patient's anatomy.But McAlpine doesn't see this as the end of the road for these 3D-printed models."As our 3D-printing techniques continue to improve and we discover new ways to integrate electronics to mimic organ function, the models themselves may be used as artificial replacement organs," said McAlpine, who holds the Kuhrmeyer Family Chair Professorship in the University of Minnesota Department of Mechanical Engineering. "Someday maybe these 'bionic' organs can be as good as or better than their biological counterparts."In addition to McAlpine, the team included University of Minnesota researchers Ghazaleh Haghiashtiani, co-first author and a recent mechanical engineering Ph.D. Graduate who now works at Seagate.

Kaiyan Qiu, another co-first author and a former mechanical engineering postdoctoral researcher who is now an assistant professor at Washington State University. Jorge D. Zhingre Sanchez, a former biomedical engineering Ph.D.

Student who worked in the University of Minnesota's Visible Heart Laboratories who is now a senior R&D engineer at Medtronic. Zachary J. Fuenning, a mechanical engineering graduate student.

Paul A. Iaizzo, a professor of surgery in the Medical School and founding director of the U of M Visible Heart Laboratories. Priya Nair, senior scientist at Medtronic.

And Sarah E. Ahlberg, director of research &. Technology at Medtronic.This research was funded by Medtronic, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health, and the Minnesota Discovery, Research, and InnoVation Economy (MnDRIVE) Initiative through the State of Minnesota.

Additional support was provided by University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship and Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship awarded to Ghazaleh Haghiashtiani..

More than 90% of babies born with heart defects levitra discount code survive into adulthood. As a result, there are now more adults living with congenital heart disease than children. These adults have a chronic, lifelong condition and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has produced advice to give the best chance of a normal levitra discount code life. The guidelines are published online today in European Heart Journal,1 and on the ESC website.2Congenital heart disease refers to any structural defect of the heart and/or great vessels (those directly connected to the heart) present at birth. Congenital heart disease affects all aspects of life, including physical and mental health, levitra discount code socialising, and work.

Most patients are unable to exercise at the same level as their peers which, along with the awareness of having a chronic condition, affects mental wellbeing."Having a congenital heart disease, with a need for long-term follow-up and treatment, can also have an impact on social life, limit employment options and make it difficult to get insurance," said Professor Helmut Baumgartner, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and head of Adult Congenital and Valvular Heart Disease at the University Hospital of Münster, Germany. "Guiding and supporting patients in all of these processes is an inherent part of their care."All adults with congenital heart disease should have at least one levitra discount code appointment at a specialist centre to determine how often they need to be seen. Teams at these centres should include specialist nurses, psychologists and social workers given that anxiety and depression are common concerns.Pregnancy is contraindicated in women with certain conditions such high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. "Pre-conception counselling is recommended for women and men to discuss the risk of the defect levitra discount code in offspring and the option of foetal screening," said Professor Julie De Backer, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and cardiologist and clinical geneticist at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.Concerning sports, recommendations are provided for each condition. Professor De Backer said.

"All adults with congenital heart levitra discount code disease should be encouraged to exercise, taking into account the nature of the underlying defect and their own abilities."The guidelines state when and how to diagnose complications. This includes proactively monitoring for arrhythmias, cardiac imaging and blood tests to detect problems with heart function.Detailed recommendations are provided on how and when to treat complications. Arrhythmias are an important cause of sickness and death and the guidelines stress the importance levitra discount code of correct and timely referral to a specialised treatment centre. They also list when particular treatments should be considered such as ablation (a procedure to destroy heart tissue and stop faulty electrical signals) and device implantation.For several defects, there are new recommendations for catheter-based treatment. "Catheter-based treatment should be performed by levitra discount code specialists in adult congenital heart disease working within a multidisciplinary team," said Professor Baumgartner.

Story Source. Materials provided by European Society of levitra discount code Cardiology. Note. Content may be edited for style and length.One in five patients die within a year after the levitra discount code most common type of heart attack. European Society of Cardiology (ESC) treatment guidelines for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome are published online today in European Heart Journal, and on the ESC website.Chest pain is the most common symptom, along with pain radiating to one or both arms, the neck, or jaw.

Anyone experiencing these symptoms should call an levitra discount code ambulance immediately. Complications include potentially deadly heart rhythm disorders (arrhythmias), which are another reason to seek urgent medical help.Treatment is aimed at the underlying cause. The main reason is fatty deposits (atherosclerosis) that become surrounded by a levitra discount code blood clot, narrowing the arteries supplying blood to the heart. In these cases, patients should receive blood thinners and stents to restore blood flow. For the first time, the guidelines recommend imaging to identify other causes such as a tear in a blood levitra discount code vessel leading to the heart.Regarding diagnosis, there is no distinguishing change on the electrocardiogram (ECG), which may be normal.

The key step is measuring a chemical in the blood called troponin. When blood flow to levitra discount code the heart is decreased or blocked, heart cells die, and troponin levels rise. If levels are normal, the measurement should be repeated one hour later to rule out the diagnosis. If elevated, hospital admission is recommended to further evaluate the severity of the disease and decide the treatment strategy.Given that the main cause is related to atherosclerosis, there is a high risk of recurrence, which can also levitra discount code be deadly. Patients should be prescribed blood thinners and lipid lowering therapies.

"Equally important is a healthy lifestyle including smoking cessation, exercise, and a diet emphasising vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting saturated fat and alcohol," said Professor Jean-Philippe Collet, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and professor of cardiology, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Behavioural change and adherence to medication are best achieved when patients are supported by a multidisciplinary team including cardiologists, general practitioners, levitra discount code nurses, dietitians, physiotherapists, psychologists, and pharmacists.The likelihood of triggering another heart attack during sexual activity is low for most patients, and regular exercise decreases this risk. Healthcare providers should ask patients about sexual activity and offer advice and counselling.Annual influenza vaccination is recommended -- especially for patients aged 65 and over -- to prevent further heart attacks and increase longevity."Women should receive equal access to care, a prompt diagnosis, and treatments at the same rate and intensity as men," said Professor Holger Thiele, Chairperson of the guidelines Task Force and medical director, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Centre Leipzig, Germany. Story Source levitra discount code. Materials provided by European Society of Cardiology. Note.

Content may be edited for style and length.Feeling angry these days?. New research suggests that a good night of sleep may be just what you need.This program of research comprised an analysis of diaries and lab experiments. The researchers analyzed daily diary entries from 202 college students, who tracked their sleep, daily stressors, and anger over one month. Preliminary results show that individuals reported experiencing more anger on days following less sleep than usual for them.The research team also conducted a lab experiment involving 147 community residents. Participants were randomly assigned either to maintain their regular sleep schedule or to restrict their sleep at home by about five hours across two nights.

Following this manipulation, anger was assessed during exposure to irritating noise.The experiment found that well-slept individuals adapted to noise and reported less anger after two days. In contrast, sleep-restricted individuals exhibited higher and increased anger in response to aversive noise, suggesting that losing sleep undermined emotional adaptation to frustrating circumstance. Subjective sleepiness accounted for most of the experimental effect of sleep loss on anger. A related experiment in which individuals reported anger following an online competitive game found similar results."The results are important because they provide strong causal evidence that sleep restriction increases anger and increases frustration over time," said Zlatan Krizan, who has a doctorate in personality and social psychology and is a professor of psychology at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. "Moreover, the results from the daily diary study suggest such effects translate to everyday life, as young adults reported more anger in the afternoon on days they slept less."The authors noted that the findings highlight the importance of considering specific emotional reactions such as anger and their regulation in the context of sleep disruption.

Story Source. Materials provided by American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Note. Content may be edited for style and length.Overcoming the nation's opioid epidemic will require clinicians to look beyond opioids, new research from Oregon Health &. Science University suggests.The study reveals that among patients who participated in an in-hospital addiction medicine intervention at OHSU, three-quarters came into the hospital using more than one substance.

Overall, participants used fewer substances in the months after working with the hospital-based addictions team than before.The study published in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment."We found that polysubstance use is the norm," said lead author Caroline King, M.P.H., a health systems researcher and current M.D./Ph.D. Student in the OHSU School of Medicine's biomedical engineering program. "This is important because we may need to offer additional support to patients using multiple drugs. If someone with opioid use disorder also uses alcohol or methamphetamines, we miss caring for the whole person by focusing only on their opioid use."About 40% of participants reported they had abstained from using at least one substance at least a month after discharge -- a measure of success that isn't typically tracked in health system record-keeping.Researchers enrolled 486 people seen by an addiction medicine consult service while hospitalized at OHSU Hospital between 2015 and 2018, surveying them early during their stay in the hospital and then again 30 to 90 days after discharge. advertisement Treatment of opioid use disorder can involve medication such as buprenorphine, or Suboxone, which normalizes brain function by acting on the same target in the brain as prescription opioids or heroin.However, focusing only on the opioid addiction may not adequately address the complexity of each patient."Methamphetamine use in many parts of the U.S., including Oregon, is prominent right now," said senior author Honora Englander, M.D., associate professor of medicine (hospital medicine) in the OHSU School of Medicine.

"If people are using stimulants and opioids -- and we only talk about their opioid use -- there are independent harms from stimulant use combined with opioids. People may be using methamphetamines for different reasons than they use opioids."Englander leads the in-hospital addiction service, known as Project IMPACT, or Improving Addiction Care Team.The initiative brings together physicians, social workers, peer-recovery mentors and community addiction providers to address addiction when patients are admitted to the hospital. Since its inception in 2015, the program has served more than 1,950 people hospitalized at OHSU.The national opioid epidemic spiraled out of control following widespread prescribing of powerful pain medications beginning in the 1990s. Since then, it has often been viewed as a public health crisis afflicting rural, suburban and affluent communities that are largely white.Englander said the new study suggests that a singular focus on opioids may cause clinicians to overlook complexity of issues facing many populations, including people of color, who may also use other substances."Centering on opioids centers on whiteness," Englander said. "Understanding the complexity of people's substance use patterns is really important to honoring their experience and developing systems that support their needs."Researchers say the finding further reinforces earlier research showing that hospitalization is an important time to offer treatment to people with substance use disorder, even if they are not seeking treatment for addiction when they come to the hospital.

Story Source. Materials provided by Oregon Health &. Science University. Original written by Erik Robinson. Note.

Content may be edited for style and length.Researchers from the University of Minnesota, with support from Medtronic, have developed a groundbreaking process for multi-material 3D printing of lifelike models of the heart's aortic valve and the surrounding structures that mimic the exact look and feel of a real patient.These patient-specific organ models, which include 3D-printed soft sensor arrays integrated into the structure, are fabricated using specialized inks and a customized 3D printing process. Such models can be used in preparation for minimally invasive procedures to improve outcomes in thousands of patients worldwide.The research is published in Science Advances, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).The researchers 3D printed what is called the aortic root, the section of the aorta closest to and attached to the heart. The aortic root consists of the aortic valve and the openings for the coronary arteries. The aortic valve has three flaps, called leaflets, surrounded by a fibrous ring. The model also included part of the left ventricle muscle and the ascending aorta."Our goal with these 3D-printed models is to reduce medical risks and complications by providing patient-specific tools to help doctors understand the exact anatomical structure and mechanical properties of the specific patient's heart," said Michael McAlpine, a University of Minnesota mechanical engineering professor and senior researcher on the study.

"Physicians can test and try the valve implants before the actual procedure. The models can also help patients better understand their own anatomy and the procedure itself."This organ model was specifically designed to help doctors prepare for a procedure called a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in which a new valve is placed inside the patient's native aortic valve. The procedure is used to treat a condition called aortic stenosis that occurs when the heart's aortic valve narrows and prevents the valve from opening fully, which reduces or blocks blood flow from the heart into the main artery. Aortic stenosis is one of the most common cardiovascular conditions in the elderly and affects about 2.7 million adults over the age of 75 in North America. The TAVR procedure is less invasive than open heart surgery to repair the damaged valve.

advertisement The aortic root models are made by using CT scans of the patient to match the exact shape. They are then 3D printed using specialized silicone-based inks that mechanically match the feel of real heart tissue the researchers obtained from the University of Minnesota's Visible Heart Laboratories. Commercial printers currently on the market can 3D print the shape, but use inks that are often too rigid to match the softness of real heart tissue.On the flip side, the specialized 3D printers at the University of Minnesota were able to mimic both the soft tissue components of the model, as well as the hard calcification on the valve flaps by printing an ink similar to spackling paste used in construction to repair drywall and plaster.Physicians can use the models to determine the size and placement of the valve device during the procedure. Integrated sensors that are 3D printed within the model give physicians the electronic pressure feedback that can be used to guide and optimize the selection and positioning of the valve within the patient's anatomy.But McAlpine doesn't see this as the end of the road for these 3D-printed models."As our 3D-printing techniques continue to improve and we discover new ways to integrate electronics to mimic organ function, the models themselves may be used as artificial replacement organs," said McAlpine, who holds the Kuhrmeyer Family Chair Professorship in the University of Minnesota Department of Mechanical Engineering. "Someday maybe these 'bionic' organs can be as good as or better than their biological counterparts."In addition to McAlpine, the team included University of Minnesota researchers Ghazaleh Haghiashtiani, co-first author and a recent mechanical engineering Ph.D.

Graduate who now works at Seagate. Kaiyan Qiu, another co-first author and a former mechanical engineering postdoctoral researcher who is now an assistant professor at Washington State University. Jorge D. Zhingre Sanchez, a former biomedical engineering Ph.D. Student who worked in the University of Minnesota's Visible Heart Laboratories who is now a senior R&D engineer at Medtronic.

Zachary J. Fuenning, a mechanical engineering graduate student. Paul A. Iaizzo, a professor of surgery in the Medical School and founding director of the U of M Visible Heart Laboratories. Priya Nair, senior scientist at Medtronic.

And Sarah E. Ahlberg, director of research &. Technology at Medtronic.This research was funded by Medtronic, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health, and the Minnesota Discovery, Research, and InnoVation Economy (MnDRIVE) Initiative through the State of Minnesota. Additional support was provided by University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship and Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship awarded to Ghazaleh Haghiashtiani..