Power, Pathological Worldviews, and the Strengths Perspective in Social Work

This article takes up Blundo’s (2001) assertion in this journal that in order to practice from the strengths perspective, social workers need to alter their “frames.” Expanding on this assertion, we specify a particular frame that requires change: a pathological worldview. Examining the strengths perspective with regard to a Foucauldian analysis of power, we argue that to thoroughly implement the strengths perspective, we need to consider the dividing practices that allow us to maintain power and that reflect a pathological worldview. This article provides considerations for social work practice that will be of interest to practicing social workers and social work educators interested in continuing to develop their strengths-based practice

Variability Across Implanting Centers in Short and Long-Term Mortality and Adverse Events in Patients on HeartMate 3 Support: A Momentum 3 Secondary Analysis

Purpose: We aimed to characterize center-specific variability in HeartMate 3 (HM3) patient survival within the MOMENTUM 3 studies and to examine the correlation between implanting center survival and major adverse events (AEs). Methods: Center HM3 implant volume during the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal (n=515) and continued access protocol (n=1685) trials were tallied. Centers implanting ≤16 HM3 patients (25th percentile) were excluded. De-identified center variability in mortality was assessed at 90 days and 2 years using direct adjusted survival while accounting for key baseline risk factors. The 90-day frequency and 2-year rates of stroke, bleeding, and infection were compared across centers and correlations between survival and event rate variability were assessed. Results: Among 48 centers, 1957 HM3 patients were included in this analysis with site implants ranging between 17 to 103 patients. Patient cohorts differed across the sites by age (average 52-68 years), sex (60-95% male), destination therapy intent (25-100%), and %INTERMACS profile 1-2 (2-81%). At 90 days, center adjusted median mortality was 6.5%, nadiring at ≤3.2% (25th percentile) and peaking at ≥10.5% (75th percentile). Median 2-year center adjusted mortality was 18.6%, nadiring at ≤14.0% and peaking at ≥25.2% (figure A). AEs were also highly variable across centers; centers with low mortality tended to have lower AE rates at 2 years (figure B). Conclusion: Patient characteristics and outcomes were highly variable across MOMENTUM 3 centers despite trial preoperative inclusion/exclusion criteria. Many centers had exemplary risk-adjusted HM3 patient outcomes. Studies are needed to improve our understanding of top performing centers’ best practices as they relate to HM3 care in the pre, interoperative, and chronic support stages in an effort to further improve HM3 LVAD-associated clinical outcomes

Concomitant Valvular Procedures During LVAD Implantation and Outcomes: An Analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 Trial Portfolio

Purpose: Correction of valvular pathology is often undertaken in patients undergoing LVAD implantation but impact on outcomes is uncertain. We compared clinical outcomes with HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD implantation in those with concurrent valve procedures (VP) to those with an isolated LVAD implant within the MOMENTUM3 trial portfolio, including the Pivotal Trial (n=515, NCT02224755) and Continued Access Protocol/ CAP (n=1685, NCT02892955). Methods: The study included 2200 HM3 implanted patients. Among 820 concurrent procedures (including VP, CABG, RVAD, LAA closure), 466 (21.8%) were VPs (HM3+VP), including 81 aortic, 61 mitral, 163 tricuspid, and 85 patients with multiple VPs. Short and Long-term outcomes including peri-operative complications and healthcare resource use, major adverse events and survival were analyzed. Results: Patients undergoing HM3+VP were older (63[54-70] vs. 62[52-68] yrs), with a sicker INTERMACS profile (1-2:41% vs.31%) and higher central venous pressure (11[8-16] vs. 9[6-14] mmHg) compared to HM3 alone (all p\u3c0.05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (124[97-158] vs.76[59-96] mins); ICU (8.5 [5-16] vs. 7 [5-13]) and hospital length of stay (20 [15-30] vs. 18 [14-24] days) were longer in HM3+VP (all p\u3c0.0001). A significantly higher incidence of stroke (4.9% vs. 2.4%), bleeding (33.9% vs. 23.8%) and right heart failure (41.5% vs. 29.6%) was noted in HM3+VP for 0-30 days post-implant (all p\u3c0.01), but 30-day survival was similar between groups (96.7% vs. 96.1%). There was no difference in 2-year survival in HM3+VP vs HM3 alone patients (HR[95%CI]:0.93 [0.71-1.21];p=0.60). Analysis of individual VPs showed no significant differences in survival compared to HM3 alone (Figure). Conclusion: Concurrent VPs are commonly performed during LVAD implantation, are associated with increased morbidity during the index hospitalization, but short and long-term survival are not impacted adversely when compared with those that undergo an isolated LVAD procedure

Defining Metrics for Short Term Success After LVAD Implant: An Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Registry

Purpose: While clinical trials evaluating left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology typically use composite outcomes to assess efficacy, composite outcomes including patient reported outcomes (PROs) have not been utilized as benchmarks for LVAD implant center performance improvement initiatives or quality ranking. The objective of the study was to assess the feasibility of generating a patient composite outcome measure including PROs from a real world registry. Methods: Short term (ST, 180 days) adverse events (AEs) and mortality were tallied for Intermacs patients undergoing LVAD implant between 1/2012 and 12/2019. ST postoperative events included mortality on first device and frequencies of stroke, reoperation (device malfunction/other), right heart failure (RHF), prolonged respiratory failure, and/or dialysis on first device. Logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios for mortality for each AE. Separately, the EuroQOL visual analog scale (VAS) was assessed at baseline and 180 days in ST survivors. Results: Of 20,115 patients, 37% suffered at least one event, most commonly death, reoperation and stroke (Table, column A). Stroke, prolonged respiratory failure, and dialysis attributed the most to ST mortality (Table, column B). Of the 16725 patients alive at 180 days, 43% completed a VAS with 82.0% showing VAS improvement. Renal failure and RHF contributed most to failure to improve VAS (Figure). Conclusion: Assessment of a ST composite outcome metric after LVAD implant from a real world data source is feasible but limited by incomplete PRO reporting. ST adverse events display differential effects on mortality and PROs that can be used in development of global rank outcome scores. While reoperation is common, stroke, prolonged respiratory failure and renal failure conferred highest risks of ST deaths within Intermacs. Assessment of PROs should become a priority for LVAD centers to allow the field to generate a complete assessment of patient-centered outcomes

Clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditures in the real world with left ventricular assist devices - The CLEAR-LVAD study

BACKGROUND: Several distinctly engineered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are in clinical use. However, contemporaneous real world comparisons have not been conducted, and clinical trials were not powered to evaluate differential survival outcomes across devices. OBJECTIVES: Determine real world survival outcomes and healthcare expenditures for commercially available durable LVADs. METHODS: Using a retrospective observational cohort design, Medicare claims files were linked to manufacturer device registration data to identify de-novo, durable LVAD implants performed between January 2014 and December 2018, with follow-up through December 2019. Survival outcomes were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LVAD type and validated using propensity score matching. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed across device types by using nonparametric bootstrap analysis methodology. Primary outcome was survival at 1-year and total Part A Medicare payments. RESULTS: A total of 4,195 de-novo LVAD implants were identified in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (821 HeartMate 3; 1,840 HeartMate II; and 1,534 Other-VADs). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality at 1-year (confirmed in a propensity score matched analysis) for the HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was 0.64 (95% CI; 0.52-0.79, p\u3c 0.001) and for the HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was 0.51 (95% CI; 0.42-0.63, p \u3c 0.001). The HeartMate 3 cohort experienced fewer hospitalizations per patient-year vs Other-VADs (respectively, 2.8 vs 3.2 EPPY hospitalizations, p \u3c 0.01) and 6.1 fewer hospital days on average (respectively, 25.2 vs 31.3 days, p \u3c 0.01). The difference in Medicare expenditures, conditional on survival, for HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was -$10,722, p \u3c 0.001 (17.4$17,947, p \u3c 0.001 (26.1% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large, real world, United States. administrative dataset of durable LVADs, we observed that the HeartMate 3 had superior survival, reduced healthcare resource use, and lower healthcare expenditure compared to other contemporary commercially available LVADs

Interpreting neurologic outcomes in a changing trial design landscape: An analysis of HeartWare left ventricular assist device using a hybrid intention to treat population

Randomized controlled trials can provide optimal clinical evidence to assess the benefits of new devices, and it is these data that often shape device usage in real-world practice. However, individual clinical trial results sometimes appear discordant for the same device, and alternative devices are sometimes not employed in similar patient populations. To make sound evidence-based decisions, clinicians routinely rely on cross-trial comparisons from different trials of similar but not identical patient populations to assess competing technology when head-to-head randomized comparisons are unavailable

Registration of ‘LCS Compass’ Wheat

‘LCS Compass’ (Reg. No. CV-1149, PI 675458), a hard red winter (HRW) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), was developed and tested as VA10HRW-13 and co-released by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station and Limagrain Cereal Seeds, LLC, in 2015. LCS Compass was derived from the cross ‘Vision 20’ /‘Stanof’ using a modified bulk breeding method. LCS Compass is a widely adapted, high-yielding, awned, semidwarf (Rht1) HRW wheat with early to medium maturity and resistance or moderate resistance to diseases prevalent in the mid-Atlantic and Great Plains regions of the United States. In the 2013 Uniform Bread Wheat Trial conducted over 18 locations in eastern states, LCS Compass produced an average grain yield of 4609 kg ha−1 that was similar to ‘Vision 30’ (4697 kg ha−1). In the northern Great Plains, the average grain yield of LCS Compass (4015 kg ha−1) over 44 locations in 2013 was similar to ‘Jerry’ (4013 kg ha−1). In the South Dakota crop zone 3 variety test, LCS Compass had a 3-yr (2015–2017) yield average of 5575 kg ha−1 and was one of highest-yielding cultivars among the 19 cultivars tested over the 3-yr period. LCS Compass has good end-use quality in both the eastern and Great Plains regions of the United States

Learning from natural sediments to tackle microplastics challenges: A multidisciplinary perspective

Although the study of microplastics in the aquatic environment incorporates a diversity of research fields, it is still in its infancy in many aspects while comparable topics have been studied in other disciplines for decades. In particular, extensive research in sedimentology can provide valuable insights to guide future microplastics research. To advance our understanding of the comparability of natural sediments with microplastics, we take an interdisciplinary look at the existing literature describing particle properties, transport processes, sampling techniques and ecotoxicology. Based on our analysis, we define seven research goals that are essential to improve our understanding of microplastics and can be tackled by learning from natural sediment research, and identify relevant tasks to achieve each goal. These goals address (1) the description of microplastic particles, (2) the interaction of microplastics with environmental substances, (3) the vertical distribution of microplastics, (4) the erosion and deposition behaviour of microplastics, (5) the impact of biota on microplastic transport, (6) the sampling methods and (7) the microplastic toxicity. When describing microplastic particles, we should specifically draw from the knowledge of natural sediments, for example by using shape factors or applying methods for determining the principal dimensions of non-spherical particles. Sediment transport offers many fundamentals that are transferable to microplastic transport, and could be usefully applied. However, major knowledge gaps still exist in understanding the role of transport modes, the influence of biota on microplastic transport, and the importance and implementation of the dynamic behaviour of microplastics as a result of time-dependent changes in particle properties in numerical models. We give an overview of available sampling methods from sedimentology and discuss their suitability for microplastic sampling, which can be used for creating standardised guidelines for future application with microplastics. In order to comprehensively assess the ecotoxicology of microplastics, a distinction must be made between the effects of the polymers themselves, their physical form, the plastic-associated chemicals and the attached pollutants. This review highlights areas where we can rely on understanding and techniques from sediment research - and areas where we need new, microplastic-specific knowledge - and synthesize recommendations to guide future, interdisciplinary microplastic research

Specific genomic aberrations in primary colorectal cancer are associated with liver metastases

Background: Accurate staging of colorectal cancer (CRC) with clinicopathological parameters is important for predicting prognosis and guiding treatment but provides no information about organ site of metastases. Patterns of genomic aberrations in primary colorectal tumors may reveal a chromosomal signature for organ specific metastases. Methods: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) was employed to asses DNA copy number changes in primary colorectal tumors of three distinctive patient groups. This included formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue of patients who developed liver metastases (LM; n = 36), metastases (PM; n = 37) and a group that remained metastases-free (M0; n = 25). A novel statistical method for identifying recurrent copy number changes, KC-SMART, was used to find specific locations of genomic aberrations specific for various groups. We created a classifier for organ specific metastases based on the aCGH data using Prediction Analysis for Microarrays (PAM). Results: Specifically in the tumors of primary CRC patients who subsequently developed liver metastasis, KC-SMART analysis identified genomic aberrations on chromosome 20q. LM-PAM, a shrunken centroids classifier for liver metastases occurrence, was able to distinguish the LM group from the other groups (M0&PM) with 80% accuracy (78% sensitivity and 86% specificity). The classification is predominantly based on chromosome 20q aberrations. Conclusion: Liver specific CRC metastases may be predicted with a high accuracy based on specific genomic aberrations in the primary CRC tumor. The ability to predict the site of metastases is important for improvement of personalized patient management.MediamaticsElectrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Scienc