ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction—Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction)

Although considerable improvement has occurred in the process of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), room for improvement exists (1–3). The purpose of the present guideline is to focus on the numerous advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with STEMI since 1999. This is reflected in the changed name of the guideline: “ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.” The final recommendations for indications for a diagnostic procedure, a particular therapy, or an intervention in patients with STEMI summarize both clinical evidence and expert opinion (Table 1).To provide clinicians with a set of recommendations that can easily be translated into the practice of caring for patients with STEMI, this guideline is organized around the chronology of the interface between the patient and the clinician. The full guideline is available at http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/stemi/index.htm

2007 Focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines

Late-breaking clinical trials presented at the 2005 and 2006 annual scientific meetings of the ACC, AHA, and European Society of Cardiology, as well as selected other data, were reviewed by the standing guideline writing committee along with the parent Task Force and other experts to identify those trials and other key data that might impact guidelines recommendations. On the basis of the criteria/considerations noted above, recent trial data and other clinical information were considered important enough to prompt a focused update of the 2004 ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarctio

2009 Focused Updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update)

Late-breaking clinical trials presented at the 2007 and 2008 annual scientific meetings of the ACC, AHA, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, the European Society of Cardiology, and the 2009 annual scientific sessions of the ACC were reviewed by the standing guideline writing committee along with the parent Task Force and other experts to identify those trials and other key data that may impact guideline recommendations. On the basis of the criteria/considerations noted above, recent trial data and other clinical information were considered important enough to prompt a focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, inclusive of their respective 2007 focused updates (2–5)

Changes in Drug Prescribing Patterns Related to Commercial Company Funding of Continuing Medical Education

In order to determine the impact of commercial company funding of continuing medical education (CME) courses, a survey was undertaken. Drug prescribing rates for drugs related to course content were determined by self-report survey of physician attendees (374 in number) for three different CME courses. The survey was performed immediately before and six months after the courses. A single, though different, drug company provided the majority of the funding for each course. Courses I and III were related to calcium channel blockers and Course II to beta blockers. The return rate before Course I was 73.0 percent; after, 54.0 percent (unmatched). The return rate for Course II was 49.4 percent before and 42.9 percent after (unmatched). There were 121 (61.4%) matched returns for Course III. While the rates for prescribing some of the related drugs increased after the courses, overall the sponsoring drug company\u27s products were favored. Although physicians attending CME and accredited sponsors of CME need to be aware of this potential influence, the final burden of adequate evaluation of drugs remains with the physician prescriber. Further studies should be done to substantiate the findings and elucidate the mechanism(s) of the increase in sponsoring company\u27s drug prescriptions

Changes in Drug Prescribing Patterns Related to Commercial Company Funding of Continuing Medical Education

In order to determine the impact of commercial company funding of continuing medical education (CME) courses, a survey was undertaken. Drug prescribing rates for drugs related to course content were determined by self-report survey of physician attendees (374 in number) for three different CME courses. The survey was performed immediately before and six months after the courses. A single, though different, drug company provided the majority of the funding for each course. Courses I and III were related to calcium channel blockers and Course II to beta blockers. The return rate before Course I was 73.0 percent; after, 54.0 percent (unmatched). The return rate for Course II was 49.4 percent before and 42.9 percent after (unmatched). There were 121 (61.4%) matched returns for Course III. While the rates for prescribing some of the related drugs increased after the courses, overall the sponsoring drug company\u27s products were favored. Although physicians attending CME and accredited sponsors of CME need to be aware of this potential influence, the final burden of adequate evaluation of drugs remains with the physician prescriber. Further studies should be done to substantiate the findings and elucidate the mechanism(s) of the increase in sponsoring company\u27s drug prescriptions

Postoperative outcomes of total knee arthroplasty compared to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A matched comparison

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate early postoperative outcomes in patients following UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty) compared to a matched cohort of TKA (total knee arthroplasty) patients. Methods: Patients who met radiographic criteria for a medial UKA who underwent either a TKA or UKA at a single institution were matched based on age, gender, and BMI. Results: One hundredy and fifty UKA in 138 patients and 150 TKA in 148 patients were included in this retrospective analysis. Mean age was 62.6 ± 9 years and 65.2 ± 9 years in the UKA and TKA groups respectively (p = .01). Patients who underwent UKA had significantly less pain at two and six weeks postoperatively compared to TKA patients with mean Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores of 3.7 ± 1.1 vs. 7.8 ± 1.2, p < .001 and 2.6 ± 1.3 vs. 4.6 ± 1.6, p < .001 respectively. Knee Society Scores (KSS) were higher in the UKA group at six weeks and two years postoperative (86.5 ± 2.8 vs. 81.4 ± 3.6, p < .001 and 89.5 ± 2.4 vs. 84.5 ± 3.3, p < .001 respectively). Return to work was faster in the UKA group (mean 20.6 ± 7.89 vs. 38.6 ± 6.23 days, p < .001). The UKA group also had higher mean Forgotten Joint Scores of 90.5 ± 3.6 vs. 79.5 ± 9.5 (p < .001). Conclusions: Patients with primarily medial compartment OA who underwent UKA had less postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and higher KSS compared to a matched group who underwent TKA

DS_10.1177_0363546518765158 – Supplemental material for Summative Report on Time Out of Play for Major and Minor League Baseball: An Analysis of 49,955 Injuries From 2011 Through 2016

<p>Supplemental material, DS_10.1177_0363546518765158 for Summative Report on Time Out of Play for Major and Minor League Baseball: An Analysis of 49,955 Injuries From 2011 Through 2016 by Christopher L. Camp, Joshua S. Dines, Jelle P. van der List, Stan Conte, Justin Conway, David W. Altchek, Struan H. Coleman, and Andrew D. Pearle in The American Journal of Sports Medicine</p