Introduction: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived product that contains platelet concentrations at least 2/3 times above the normal level and includes platelet-related growth factors. The concept of PRP began in the 1970s in the field of hematology to treat patients with thrombocytopenia. In the 1980s and 1990s, PRP began to be used in surgical procedures such as maxillofacial surgery and plastic surgery. Since then, PRP had been used in orthopedic procedures, cardiac surgery, sports injuries, plastic surgery, gynecology, urology, and more recently in medical aesthetics. Areas covered: This review analyzes the mechanisms of action, current indications, clinical evidence, safety and future directions of PRP in the management of various medical conditions. The literature search methodology included using medical subject headings terms to search in PubMed. Articles used were screened and critically appraised by the co-authors of this review. Expert Opinion: Platelet-rich plasma is a therapeutic option used to treat many medical conditions. PRP could be used alone or in combination with other procedures. The effectiveness and safety of PRP has been demonstrated in many medical scenarios, however there is limited availability of large randomized clinical trials.

Healthcare workers exposed to coronavirus (COVID-19) may not have adequate access to personal protective equipment (PPE), safety procedures, and diagnostic protocols. Our objective was to evaluate the reality and perceptions about personal safety among healthcare workers in Latin America. This is a cross-sectional, online survey-based study administered to 936 healthcare professionals in Latin America from 31 March 2020 to 4 April 2020. A 12-item structured questionnaire was developed. A total of 936 healthcare workers completed the online survey. Of them, 899 (95.1%) were physicians, 28 (2.9%) were nurses, and 18 (1.9%) were allied health professionals. Access to protective equipment was as follows: gel hand sanitizer (n = 889; 95%), disposable gloves (n = 853; 91.1%), disposable gowns (n = 630; 67.3%), disposable surgical masks (785; 83.9%), N95 masks (n = 516; 56.1%), and facial protective shields (n = 305; 32.6%). The vast majority (n = 707; 75.5%) had access to personal safety policies and procedures, and 699 (74.7%) participants had access to diagnostic algorithms. On a 1-to-10 Likert scale, the participants expressed limited human resources support (4.92 ± 0.2; mean ± SD), physical integrity protection in the workplace (5.5 ± 0.1; mean ± SD), and support from public health authorities (5.01 ± 0.12; mean ± SD). Healthcare workers in Latin America had limited access to essential PPE and support from healthcare authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regional variability of longitudinal strain (LS) has been previously described with echocardiography in patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA), however, the reason for this variability is not completely evident. We sought to describe regional patterns in LS using feature-tracking software applied to cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) cine images in patients with CA, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and Anderson-Fabry’s disease (AFD) and to relate these patterns to the distribution of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Patients with CA (n = 45) were compared to LV mass indexed matched patients with HCM (n = 19) and AFD (n = 19). Peak systolic LS measurements were obtained using Velocity Vector Imaging (VVI) software on CMR cine images. A relative regional LS ratio (RRSR) was calculated as the ratio of the average of the apical segmental LS divided by the sum of the average basal and mid-ventricular segmental LS. LGE was quantified for the basal, mid, and apical segments using a threshold of 5SD above remote myocardium. A regional LGE ratio was calculated similar to RRSR. Patients with CA had significantly had worse global LS (−15.7 ± 4.6%) than those with HCM (−18.0 ± 4.6%, p = 0.046) and AFD (−21.9 ± 5.1%, p < 0.001). The RRSR was higher in patients with CA (1.00 ± 0.31) than in AFD (0.79 ± 0.24; p = 0.018) but not HCM (0.84 ± 0.32; p = 0.114). In CA, a regional difference in LGE burden was noted, with lower LGE in the apex (31.5 ± 19.1%) compared to the mid (38.2 ± 19.0%) and basal (53.7 ± 22.7%; p < 0.001 for both) segments. The regional LGE ratio was not significantly different between patients with CA (0.33 ± 0.15) and AFD (0.47 ± 0.58; p = 0.14) but lower compared to those with HCM (0.72 ± 0.43; p < 0.0001). LGE percentage showed a significant impact on LS (p < 0.0001), with a 0.9% decrease in absolute LS for every 10% increase in LGE percentage. The presence of marked “relative apical sparing” of LS along with a significant reduction in global LS seen in patients with CA on CMR cine analysis may provide an additional tool to differentiate CA from other cause of LVH. The concomitant presence of a base to apex gradient in quantitative LGE burden suggests that the regional strain gradient may be at least partially explained by the burden of amyloid deposition and fibrosis.