Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) coupled with

Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry and/or diode array detector was used for the rapid and simultaneous analysis of quinapril and its by-products. Separation was achieved using a BEH C18 column and a mixture of acetonitrile-ammonium hydrogencarbonate buffer (pH 8.2; 10 mM) (65:35, v/v) at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min as a mobile phase. This method allowed drug by-products profiling, identification, structure elucidation and quantitative

determination under stress conditions. MCC950 datasheet The developed method also provides the determination of the kinetic rate constants for the degradation of quinapril and the formation of its major by-products. A complete model including degradation pathway observed under all tested conditions was proposed according to the kinetic study and the structure elucidation of by-products.”
“Purpose: To compare a vastly undersampled isotropic projection steady-state free precession (VIPR-SSFP)

this website sequence and routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for evaluating the cartilage, ligaments, menisci, and osseous structures of the knee in symptomatic patients.

Materials and Methods: All subjects signed written informed consent prior to participation in this prospective, HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. VIPR-SSFP was added to the routine 1.5-T MR imaging performed on 95 symptomatic patients (52 men, 43 women; average age, 41.6 years) who subsequently underwent arthroscopic knee surgery. All MR examinations were independently reviewed twice by two musculoskeletal radiologists to detect cartilage lesions, anterior PFTα datasheet and posterior cruciate ligament tears, meniscal tears, and bone marrow edema lesions, first by using routine MR and second by using VIPR-SSFP. By using arthroscopy as

the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of both MR protocols were calculated. The z test was used to compare sensitivity and specificity values.

Results: VIPR-SSFP had significantly higher specificity (P < .01) for helping detect cartilage lesions (92.2% for VIPR-SSFP and 88.4% for routine MR), while routine MR had significantly higher sensitivity (P = .02) and accuracy (P = .05) for helping detect lateral meniscal tears (73.2% sensitivity and 88.4% accuracy for VIPR-SSFP and 87.5% specificity and 93.2% accuracy for routine MR). There was no significant difference (P = .14 to > .99) between VIPR-SSFP and routine MR in the remaining sensitivity and specificity values. VIPR-SSFP helped detect 69.3% of bone marrow edema lesions identified at routine MR.

Comments are closed.