A Fokker-Planck formalism for diffusion with finite increments and absorbing boundaries

Gaussian white noise is frequently used to model fluctuations in physical systems. In Fokker-Planck theory, this leads to a vanishing probability density near the absorbing boundary of threshold models. Here we derive the boundary condition for the stationary density of a first-order stochastic differential equation for additive finite-grained Poisson noise and show that the response properties of threshold units are qualitatively altered. Applied to the integrate-and-fire neuron model, the response turns out to be instantaneous rather than exhibiting low-pass characteristics, highly non-linear, and asymmetric for excitation and inhibition. The novel mechanism is exhibited on the network level and is a generic property of pulse-coupled systems of threshold units.Comment: Consists of two parts: main article (3 figures) plus supplementary text (3 extra figures

2007 Focused update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines

Selected 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 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/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

"Selected 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 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/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (3–13). To provide clinicians with a comprehensive set of data, whenever possible, the exact event rates in various treatment arms of clinical trials are presented to permit calculation of the absolute risk difference (ARD) and number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH); the relative treatment effects are described either as odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), or hazard ratio (HR), depending on the format in the original publication. Consult the full-text version or executive summary of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for policy on clinical areas not covered by the focused update (13a). Individual recommendations updated in this focused update will be incorporated into future revisions and/or updates of the full-text guidelines.

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)

ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - Summary article: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) contains changes in the recommendations, along with supporting text. For the purpose of comparison, this summary contains a list of the updated recommendations (middle column) alongside a list of the 2001 recommendations (left column), with each set accompanied by a comment (right column) that provides the rationale for the changes, additions, or deletions (see Table 1). References that support either the 2001 recommendations that have changed or the new or revised recommendations are cited in parentheses at the end of each recommendation or comment. A list of abbreviations is included in the Appendix. The reader is referred to the full-text guideline posted on the World Wide Web sites of the ACC, the AHA, and the SCAI for a more detailed explanation of the changes discussed here. Please note that we have changed the table of contents headings in the 2001 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from roman numerals to unique identifying numbers

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention - Summary article: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to update the 2001 guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) contains changes in the recommendations, along with supporting text. For the purpose of comparison, this summary contains a list of the updated recommendations (middle column) alongside a list of the 2001 recommendations (left column), with each set accompanied by a comment (right column) that provides the rationale for the changes, additions, or deletions (see Table 1).References that support either the 2001 recommendations that have changed or the new or revised recommendations are cited in parentheses at the end of each recommendation or comment. A list of abbreviations is included in the Appendix. The reader is referred to the full-text guideline posted on the World Wide Web sites of the ACC, the AHA, and the SCAI for a more detailed explanation of the changes discussed here. Please note that we have changed the table of contents headings in the 2001 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from roman numerals to unique identifying numbers

ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

"The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to gather information and make recommendations about appropriate use of technology for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease. Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are an important group of technologies in this regard. Although initially limited to balloon angioplasty and termed percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), PCI now includes other new techniques capable of relieving coronary narrowing. Accordingly, in this document, implantation of intracoronary stents and other catheter-based interventions for treating coronary atherosclerosis are considered components of PCI. In this context, PTCA will be used to refer to those studies using only balloon angioplasty, whereas PCI will refer to the broader group of percutaneous techniques. These new technologies have impacted the effectiveness and safety profile initially established for balloon angioplasty. Moreover, additional experience has been gained in the use of adjunctive pharmacological treatment with glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists and the use of bivalirudin, thienopyridines, and drug-eluting stents (DES). In addition, since publication of the guidelines in 2001, greater experience in the performance of PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in community hospital settings has been gained. In view of these developments, an update of these guidelines e168 Circulation February 21, 2006 is warranted. This document reflects the opinion of the ACC/AHA/SCAI writing committee charged with updating the 2001 guidelines for PCI (1).

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)