In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

[Q]: Context: Inflammation has been implicated in the initiation, progression and manifestation of hypertensive heart disease. We sought to determine the role of monocytes/macrophages in hypertension and pressure overload induced left ventricular (LV) remodeling.', 'We used two models of LV hypertrophy (LVH). First, to induce hypertension and LVH, we fed Sabra salt-sensitive rats with a high-salt diet. The number of macrophages increased in the hypertensive hearts, peaking at 10 weeks after a high-salt diet. Surprisingly, macrophage depletion, by IV clodronate (CL) liposomes, inhibited the development of hypertension. Moreover, macrophage depletion reduced LVH by 17% (p<0.05), and reduced cardiac fibrosis by 75%, compared with controls (p=0.001). Second, to determine the role of macrophages in the development and progression of LVH, independent of high-salt diet, we depleted macrophages in mice subjected to transverse aortic constriction and pressure overload. Significantly, macrophage depletion, for 3 weeks, attenuated LVH: a 12% decrease in diastolic and 20% in systolic wall thickness (p<0.05), and a 13% in LV mass (p=0.04), compared with controls. Additionally, macrophage depletion reduced cardiac fibrosis by 80% (p=0.006). Finally, macrophage depletion down-regulated the expression of genes associated with cardiac remodeling and fibrosis: transforming growth factor beta-1 (by 80%) collagen type III alpha-1 (by 71%) and atrial natriuretic factor (by 86%).\Question: Do macrophages dictate the progression and manifestation of hypertensive heart disease?
[A]: Macrophages mediate the development of hypertension, LVH, adverse cardiac remodeling, and fibrosis. Macrophages, therefore, should be considered as a therapeutic target to reduce the adverse consequences of hypertensive heart disease.

[Q]: Context: Studies over many years have demonstrated that preoptimization and attention to appropriate perioperative care is associated with a substantial decrease in surgical mortality. This review discusses ways in which patient preparation and perioperative support can minimize surgical mortality and morbidity.', 'Scoring systems continue to be developed in order to classify categories of surgical risk. Objective physiologically based assessments can also identify high-risk groups of patients. Debate continues over the indications for specific interventions such as beta-blockade or statin therapy. There is continuing interest in perioperative optimization of oxygen delivery. A multimodality approach paying attention to a range of possible interventions appears to be beneficial. Audit, training, experience and a sufficient volume of procedures are all factors associated with surgical mortality.\Question: Does excellent anaesthesia need patient preparation and postoperative support to influence outcome?
[A]: The provision of a high-quality service throughout the perioperative period is vital for a successful outcome. Patients need to be assessed well before major elective surgery to determine if they fall into a high-risk category. Some patients may benefit from a change in management. Postoperatively, critical-care support should be available backed by level 1 (enhanced ward) care with input from outreach or medical emergency teams 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

[Q]: Context: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of emergency department (ED) ultrasound for the detection of solid organ injury following blunt abdominal trauma.', 'A prospective cohort study performed in the ED of an urban Level I trauma center on patients who sustained blunt abdominal trauma. Following initial standard trauma evaluation, patients underwent a secondary ultrasound examination performed specifically to identify injury to the liver or spleen, followed by computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen. Ultrasound examinations were performed by emergency medicine residents or attending physicians experienced in the use of ultrasound for detecting hemoperitoneum. Ultrasonographers prospectively determined the presence or absence of liver or spleen injury. CT findings were used as the criterion standard to evaluate the ultrasound results.', 'From July 1998 through June 1999, 152 patients underwent secondary ultrasound examination and CT. Of the 152 patients, nine (6%) had liver injuries and 10 (7%) had spleen injuries. Ultrasound correctly detected only one of the liver injuries for a sensitivity of 11% (95% CI: 0%-48%) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 94%-100%). Ultrasound correctly detected eight spleen injuries for a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 44%-98%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI: 95%-100%).\Question: Is emergency Department Ultrasound a Sensitive Detector of Solid Organ Injury?
[A]:
Emergency ultrasound is not sensitive or specific for detecting liver or spleen injuries following blunt abdominal trauma.