9%), followed by intrauterine device (16.8%), pills (14%), norplant (4.3%), male condom (1.2%) and female sterilization (0.8%). Multiple logistic regression model revealed that the need for more children (AOR 9.27, 95% CI 5.43-15.84), husband approve (AOR 2.82, 95% CI 1.67-4.80), couple’s discussion about family planning issues (AOR 7.32, 95% CI 3.60-14.86). Similarly, monthly family income and number of living children were significantly associated with the use of

modern contraceptives.\n\nConclusion: Modern contraceptive use was high in the district. Couple’s discussion and husband approval GSK2126458 supplier of contraceptives use were significantly associated with the use of modern contraceptives. Therefore, district health office and concerned stakeholders should focus on couples to encourage communication and male involvement for family planning.”
“Aims To evaluate the feasibility and incremental value of using an integrated bullseye model for presenting data from cardiac computed tomography (CT) GSK2879552 and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in combination with echocardiography evaluation of segmental mechanical delay for guiding optimal left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods

and results Thirty-nine patients (69 +/- 9.7 years, 77% male, 82% with LBBB, 54% with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 82% New York Heart Association classification of heart failure III) eligible for CRT were included. The left ventricular segment with the latest mechanical activation was determined by echocardiography with speckle tracking radial strain. Cardiac CT scan was used for anatomical evaluation of the coronary sinus and its branches. Cardiac MRI was used for evaluation of viability. A composite bullseye

plot was constructed, indicating the most appropriate site for left ventricle (LV) lead placement. The latest mechanical delay was in the basal-anterior (3%), basal-inferior (3%), basal-inferolateral (13%), basal-anterolateral (21%), mid-anterior (8%), mid-inferior (3%), mid-inferolateral (34%), and mid-anterolateral (16%) segment. There were on average 2.5 +/- 0.8 veins of suitable sizes ( bigger mTOR activation than = 1.5 mm in diameter). A preoperative combined bullseye plot indicated that in 53% of the patients, there was a matching vein in the segment with the latest mechanical delay. If immediately adjacent segments were included, an optimal placement was possible in 95% of the patients. At 6 months, there was a statistically significant reduction in the left ventricular end systolic volume and the left ventricular ejection fraction was improved (P smaller than 0.01). Conclusion Presenting data from echocardiography, cardiac CT, and MRI in a combined bullseye plot is both feasible and convenient for indicating the most appropriate site for LV lead placement. An optimal electrode position can be suggested in almost all patients.