A survey evaluating surgeons’ peri-operative usage of acetyl-salicylic acid (ASA) and their willingness to enroll their patients in a perioperative ASA randomized controlled trial

Purpose: Major cardiovascular complications associated with noncardiac surgery represent a substantial population health problem for which there are no established efficacious and safe prophylactic interventions. Acetyl-salicylic acid (ASA) represents a promising intervention. The objective of this study was to determine surgeons’ perioperative usage of ASA, and if they would enrol their patients in a perioperative ASA randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Cross-sectional survey of all practicing Canadian general, orthopedic, and vascular surgeons. Our mailed, self-administered survey asked surgeons to consider only their patients who were at risk of a major perioperative cardiovascular complication. Results: The response rate was 906/1854 (49%). For patients taking ASA chronically, there was marked variability regarding ASA continuation prior to surgery amongst the general and orthopedic surgeons, whereas 76% of vascular surgeons continued ASA in 81-100% of their patients. For patients not taking ASA chronically, approaches to starting ASA prior to surgery were variable amongst the vascular surgeons, whereas 70% of general and 82% of orthopaedic surgeons did not start ASA. For patients taking ASA chronically, 73% of general surgeons, 70% of orthopaedic surgeons, and 36% of vascular surgeons would allow at least 40% of their patients to participate in a perioperative RCT comparing stopping versus continuing ASA. For patients not taking ASA chronically, most general (76%), orthopaedic (67%), and vascular (51%) surgeons would allow at least 40% of their patients to participate in a perioperative RCT comparing starting ASA versus placebo. Conclusion: This national survey demonstrates that perioperative ASA usage as reported by surgeons is variable, identifying the need for, and community interest in, a large perioperative ASA trial

Low-dose, prospective triggered high-pitch spiral coronary computed tomography angiography: comparison with retrospective spiral technique.

Contains fulltext : 108574.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac computed tomographic angiography algorithms emphasize radiation reduction while maintaining diagnostic image quality (IQ). The aim of this study was to evaluate IQ and interreader variability using prospective electrocardiographically triggered high-pitch spiral cardiac computed tomographic angiography (FLASH-CT) compared to retrospective electrocardiographic gating (RETRO-CT) for coronary artery disease evaluation in a patient population including overweight and obese individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients (24 women; mean age, 60 years) matched for gender, age, body mass index (27.4 +/- 5.5 kg/m(2)), and calcium score (184 +/- 328) underwent cardiac computed tomographic angiography, 35 with FLASH-CT (Definition Flash) and 35 with RETRO-CT (Somatom Definition). Images were reconstructed using standard protocols and least motion phase for RETRO-CT acquisitions. Two independent, blinded readers evaluated the coronary arteries using an 18-segment model, grading IQ on a 5-point, Likert-type scale and coronary stenosis on a 5-point semiquantitative and binary scale. RESULTS: Effective radiation dose (1.50 vs 17.3 mSv, P 1.5 mm) were evaluated. There was no significant difference between FLASH-CT and RETRO-CT scans in overall per-segment IQ (3.11 +/- 0.75 vs 3.10 +/- 0.82, P = .94). FLASH-CT had noninferior IQ relative to RETRO-CT (95% confidence interval, -0.25 to 0.26). There was no significant difference in interreader variability in diagnosis between FLASH-CT and RETRO-CT for all coronary segments (77.5% vs 78.2%, P = .83). CONCLUSIONS: FLASH-CT is an acceptable coronary computed tomographic angiographic method for reducing radiation dose without compromising IQ for a patient population including overweight and obese individuals.1 mei 201