Whole cell patch-clamp recording yielded robust peak I-Na and large late I-Na (1.1% of peak I-Na vs 0.1-0.2% in healthy controls). A large window current was observed as well. Ranolazine (10 M) shifted steady-state V-0.5 of inactivation by -8 mV, reduced late I-Na by 82%, and significantly diminished the window current.\n\nConclusionOur results indicate the presence of cells Blebbistatin cost with M-cell characteristics in the septum of the human heart, as has previously been described in the canine heart. They also point to an ameliorative effect of ranolazine to reduce augmented late I-Na and thus to reduce the prolonged APD

in the setting of HCM. These results suggest a potential therapeutic role for ranolazine in HCM.”
“Objectives:\n\nThis exploratory study compared the screening ability of a newly introduced radiation detection portal with a traditional Geiger counter for detection of radiation contamination in the setting of a mass casualty training exercise.\n\nMethods:\n\nFollowing a pretrial evaluation of interobserver reliability for Geiger counter use, 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to don gowns containing three disks, each of which was either a sham resembling the radioactive samples or an actual cesium-137 sample; each subject participated a minimum of four times with different gowns each time. Each subject underwent standard radioactivity

screening with the Geiger counter and the portal.\n\nResults:\n\nInterobserver reliability was excellent between the two Geiger counter screeners in the pretrial exercise, correctly identifying 101 of Salubrinal 102 sham and radioactive samples (kappa = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94 to 1.00). For radioactively labeled subjects across all bodily locations, the portal (43/61, or 70.5%; 95% CI = 58.1% to 80.5%) was less sensitive than the Geiger counter screening (61/61, or 100%; 95% CI = 92.9% to 100%), which

resulted in a portal false-negative rate of 29.5%. For radiation detection in the posterior thorax, the portal radiation screening (4/19, or 21.1%; 95% CI = 8% to 43.9%) was less accurate than the Geiger check details counter (19/19, or 100%; 95% CI 80.2% to 100%). In contrast, there were no major differences between the portal and the Geiger counter for radiation detection at the left shoulder, right shoulder, or sham (nonradiation) detection. There were no false-positive detections of the sham-labeled subjects for either device, yielding a specificity of 100% for both screening modalities.\n\nConclusions:\n\nGeiger counter screening was more sensitive than, and equally specific to, radiation detection portal screening in detecting radioactively labeled subjects during a radiation mass casualty drill.\n\nACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1020-1023 (C) 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.