Pelatihan Kehumasan dan Media Bagi Staf Bawaslu Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan

Pelanggaran terhadap Undang-undang dan peraturan Pemilihan Umum (Pemilu) akan berakibat hukum. Dengan demikan diperlukan Hubungan Masyarakat yang lazim dikenal sebagai penghubung antara institusi, lembaga dengan masyarakat, terkait publikasi atau penjelasan kinerja, disingkat menjadi (Humas). Kedudukannya dalam struktur lembaga yang menaunginya, dikenal dalam berbagai bentuk, diantaranya, Biro, Bagian, Bidang, Unit, dipimpin oleh seorang pejabat yang diberikan kewenangan berdasarkan Surat Keputusan (SK), yang menguraikan Tujuan, Pokok dan Fungsi (Tupoksi). Salah satu fungsi pokok Humas adalah pembuatan rilis berita, untuk disebarluaskan kepada masyarakat, terkait kinerja lembaga atau institusi yang membentuknya. Untuk fungsi kerja itu Humas berkewajiban membangun kemitraan dengan media, baik cetak, elektronika maupun online (Website). Berdasarkan pertimbangan pengembangan keilmuan Humas, juga pers atau kewartawanan, dilaksanakan kegiatan pelatihan bagi Staf Kantor Badan Pengawas Pemilu (Bawaslu) Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan (Sulsel), yang dengannya diharapkan tercapai pemahaman yang paripurna dalam kerja-kerja kehumasan yang harus mereka jalankan dalam menghadapi Pemilihan Umum (Pemilu), baik legislatif, eksekutif, maupun Pemilihan Langsung Kepala Daerah (Pilkada)

The coronary CT angiography vision protocol : a prospective observational imaging cohort study in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

INTRODUCTION: At present, physicians have a limited ability to predict major cardiovascular complications after non-cardiac surgery and little is known about the anatomy of coronary arteries associated with perioperative myocardial infarction. We have initiated the Coronary CT Angiography (CTA) VISION Study to (1) establish the predictive value of coronary CTA for perioperative myocardial infarction and death and (2) describe the coronary anatomy of patients that have a perioperative myocardial infarction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Coronary CTA VISION Study is prospective observational study. Preoperative coronary CTA will be performed in 1000–1500 patients with a history of vascular disease or at least three cardiovascular risk factors who are undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery. Serial troponin will be measured 6–12 h after surgery and daily for the first 3 days after surgery. Major vascular outcomes at 30 days and 1 year after surgery will be independently adjudicated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Coronary CTA results in a measurable radiation exposure that is similar to a nuclear perfusion scan (10–12 mSV). Treating physicians will be blinded to the CTA results until 30 days after surgery in order to provide the most unbiased assessment of its prognostic capabilities. The only exception will be the presence of a left main stenosis >50%. This approach is supported by best available current evidence that, excluding left main disease, prophylatic revascularisation prior to non-cardiac surgery does not improve outcomes. An external safety and monitoring committee is overseeing the study and will review outcome data at regular intervals. Publications describing the results of the study will be submitted to major peer-reviewed journals and presented at international medical conferences

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Follow-up of patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy dysplasia

Objective. The enlargement of data on the natural course and management of patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/ dysplasia (ARVC/D).Design. Retrospective and partly prospective observational study.Setting. Cardiac Unit, Wentworth Hospital, Durban - the only unit in KwaZulu-Natal providing an arrhythmia and electrophysiology service.Study population. Those included were: (i) patients referred for palpitations, unexplained syncope, or ventricular tachycardia and in whom ARVC/D was diagnosed according to multiple criteria; and (ii) family members of patients with ARVC/D in whom the disease was documented using the same criteria.Main outcome and measurements. Diagnosis, management, morbidity and mortality were analysed.Results. Twelve patients were diagnosed with ARVC/D over a period or 6 years. At the end of follow-up for 3.4 ± 3.2 years, 7 of them were well and alive on anti-arrhythmic medication, 2 were asymptomatic, and 3 had died. One death was sudden, 1 patient died due to left ventricular failure, and 1 patient died due to a low cardiac output syndrome 3 months after right ventricular isolation, i.e. the mortality rate was 25%. ARVC/D was found in all racial groups and was familial in 5 patients (42%). In all but one patient the correct diagnosis was not suspected by the referring institution, physician or cardiologist..Conclusions. ARVC/D needs to be included into a differential diagnosis of unexplained syncope, palpitations, or ventricular tachycardia by an health service providers. Its management remains a complex challenge with varying results.Follow-up of patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy dysplasi

FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia

International audienc

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable