Clinical significance of perioperative Q-wave myocardial infarction: The Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial

AbstractObjective: The primary end point of the Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial was a composite of three events: death, Q-wave infarction, and a new large defect on 3-year postoperative thallium scan. This study examines the clinical significance of Q-wave infarction in the surgical cohort (194 patients) of the Emory trial. Methods: Twenty patients (10.3%) with Q-wave infarctions were identified: 13 patients had inferior Q-wave infarctions and seven patients had anterior, lateral, septal, or posterior Q-wave infarctions (termed anterior Q-wave infarctions). Results: In the inferior Q-wave infarction group, postoperative cardiac catheterization (at 1 year or 3 years) in 11 patients revealed normal ejection fraction (ejection fraction >55%) in 10 (91%), no wall motion abnormalities in 10 (91%), and all grafts patent in 10 (91%). In the anterior Q-wave infarction group, postoperative catheterizatiOn in six patients revealed normal ejection fractions in five (83%), no wall motion abnormalities in three (50%), and all grafts patent in three (50%). Average peak postoperative creatine kinase MB levels were as follows: no Q-wave infarction (n = 174) 37 ± 43 IU/L, inferior Q-wave infarction 40 ± 27 IU/L, and anterior Q-wave infarction 58 ± 38 IU/L. Mortality in the 20 patients with Q-wave infarctions was 5% (1/20) at 3 years; in patients without a Q-wave infarction it was 6.3% (11/174) (p = 0.64). Of 17 patients with a Q-wave infarction who underwent postoperative catheterization, 11 (65%) had a normal ejection fraction, normal wall motion, and all grafts patent with an uneventful 3-year postoperative course. Conclusions: The core laboratory screening of postoperative electrocardiograms, particularly in the case of inferior Q-wave infarctions, appears to identify a number of patients as having a Q-wave infarction with minimal clinical significance. Q-wave infarction identified in the postoperative period seems to be a weak end point with little prognostic significance and therefore not valuable for future randomized trials. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;112:1447-54

Host Plants and Climate Structure Habitat Associations of the Western Monarch Butterfly

The monarch butterfly is one of the most easily recognized and frequently studied insects in the world, and has recently come into the spotlight of public attention and conservation concern because of declining numbers of individuals associated with both the eastern and western migrations. Historically, the larger eastern migration has received the most scientific attention, but this has been changing in recent years, and here we report the largest-ever attempt to map and characterize non-overwintering habitat for the western monarch butterfly. Across the environmentally and topographically complex western landscape, we include 8,427 observations of adults and juvenile monarchs, as well as 20,696 records from 13 milkweed host plant species. We find high heterogeneity of suitable habitats across the geographic range, with extensive concentrations in the California floristic province in particular. We also find habitat suitability for the butterfly to be structured primarily by host plant habitat associations, which are in turn structured by a diverse suite of climatic variables. These results add to our knowledge of range and occupancy determinants for migratory species and provide a tool that can be used by conservation biologists and researchers interested in interactions among climate, hosts and host-specific animals, and by managers for prioritizing future conservation actions at regional to watershed scales

Explanatory pluralism in the medical sciences: theory and practice

Explanatory pluralism is the view that the best form and level of explanation depends on the kind of question one seeks to answer by the explanation, and that in order to answer all questions in the best way possible, we need more than one form and level of explanation. In the first part of this article, we argue that explanatory pluralism holds for the medical sciences, at least in theory. However, in the second part of the article we show that medical research and practice is actually not fully and truly explanatory pluralist yet. Although the literature demonstrates a slowly growing interest in non-reductive explanations in medicine, the dominant approach in medicine is still methodologically reductionist. This implies that non-reductive explanations often do not get the attention they deserve. We argue that the field of medicine could benefit greatly by reconsidering its reductive tendencies and becoming fully and truly explanatory pluralist. Nonetheless, trying to achieve the right balance in the search for and application of reductive and non-reductive explanations will in any case be a difficult exercise