A Qualitative Exploration of the Use of Contraband Cell Phones in Secured Facilities

Offenders accepting contraband cell phones in secured facilities violate state corrections law, and the possession of these cell phones is a form of risk taking behavior. When offenders continue this risky behavior, it affects their decision making in other domains where they are challenging authorities; and may impact the length of their incarceration. This qualitative phenomenological study examined the lived experience of ex-offenders who had contraband cell phones in secured correctional facilities in order to better understand their reasons for taking risks with contraband cell phones. The theoretical foundation for this study was Trimpop\u27s risk-homeostasis and risk-motivation theories that suggest an individual\u27s behaviors adapt to negotiate between perceived risk and desired risk in order to achieve satisfaction. The research question explored beliefs and perceptions of ex-offenders who chose to accept the risk of using contraband cell phones during their time in secured facilities. Data were collected anonymously through recorded telephone interviews with 8 male adult ex-offenders and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Findings indicated participants felt empowered by possession of cell phones in prison, and it was an acceptable risk to stay connected to family out of concern for loved ones. The study contributes to social change by providing those justice system administrators, and prison managers responsible for prison cell phone policies with more detailed information about the motivations and perspectives of offenders in respect to using contraband cell phones while imprisoned in secured facilities

Transcatheter renal sympathetic ablation for resistant hypertension: in vivo insights in humans from optical coherence tomography

[No abstract available

Does additional antimicrobial treatment have a better effect on URTI cough resolution than homeopathic symptomatic therapy alone? A real-life preliminary observational study in a pediatric population

Abstract Background: The effectiveness of a homeopathic syrup on cough has been demonstrated in an adult population in a previous double-blind randomized study. The present prospective observational study investigated children affected by wet acute cough caused by non-complicated URTIs, comparing those who received the homeopathic syrup versus those treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotic. Objectives: The aims were: 1) to assess whether the addition of antibiotics to a symptomatic treatment had a role in reducing the severity and duration of acute cough in a pediatric population, as well as in improving cough resolution; 2) to verify the safety of the two treatments. Methods: Eighty-five children were enrolled in an open study: 46 children received homeopathic syrup alone for 10 days and 39 children received homeopathic syrup for 10 days plus oral antibiotic treatment (amoxicillin/clavulanate, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) for 7 days. To assess cough severity we used a subjective verbal category-descriptive (VCD) scale. Results: Cough VCD score was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced in both groups starting from the second day of treatment (-0.52 ± 0.66 in the homeopathic syrup group and -0.56 ± 0.55 in children receiving homeopathic syrup plus oral antibiotic treatment). No significant differences in cough severity or resolution were found between the two groups of children in any of the 28 days of the study. After the first week (day 8) cough was completely resolved in more than one-half of patients in both groups. Two children (4.3 %) reported adverse effects in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup alone, versus 9 children (23.1 %) in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotics (P = 0.020). Conclusions: Our data confirm that the homeopathic treatment in question has potential benefits for cough in children as well, and highlight the strong safety profile of this treatment. Additional antibiotic prescription was not associated with a greater cough reduction, and presented more adverse events than the homeopathic syrup alone

Validation of a Contemporary Acute Kidney Injury Risk Score in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND A simple, contemporary risk score for the prediction of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was recently updated, although its external validation is lacking. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to validate the updated CA-AKI risk score in a large cohort of acute coronary syndrome patients from the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX) trial. METHODS The risk score identifies 4 risk categories for CA-AKI. The primary endpoint was to appraise the receiver-operating characteristics of an 8-component and a 12-component CA-AKI model. Independent predictors of Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes-based acute kidney injury and the impact of CA-AKI on 1-year mortality and bleeding were also investigated. RESULTS The MATRIX trial included 8,201 patients with complete creatinine values and no end-stage renal disease. CA-AKI occurred in 5.5% of the patients, with a stepwise increase of CA-AKI rates from the lowest to the highest of the 4 risk categories. The receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.64-0.70) with model 1 and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68-0.74) with model 2. CA-AKI risk was systematically overestimated with both models (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test: P < 0.05). The 1-year risks of all-cause mortality and bleeding were higher in CA-AKI patients (HR: 7.03 [95% CI: 5.47-9.05] and HR: 3.20 [95% CI: 2.56-3.99]; respectively). There was a gradual risk increase for mortality and bleeding as a function of the CA-AKI risk category for both models. CONCLUSIONS The updated CA-AKI risk score identifies patients at incremental risks of acute kidney injury, bleeding, and mortality. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627)

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo

Bivalirudin or heparin in patients undergoing invasive management of acute coronary syndromes

Background: Contrasting evidence exists on the comparative efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in relation to the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). Objectives: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with UFH with or without GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent invasive management. Methods: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) program, 7,213 patients were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin or UFH with or without GPIs at discretion of the operator. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of MACEs or major bleeding). Results: Among 3,603 patients assigned to receive UFH, 781 (21.7%) underwent planned treatment with GPI before coronary intervention. Bailout use of GPIs was similar between the bivalirudin and UFH groups (4.5% and 5.4%) (p = 0.11). At 30 days, the 2 coprimary endpoints of MACEs and NACEs, as well as individual endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke did not differ among the 3 groups after adjustment. Compared with the UFH and UFH+GPI groups, bivalirudin reduced bleeding, mainly the most severe bleeds, including fatal and nonaccess site−related events, as well as transfusion rates and the need for surgical access site repair. These findings were not influenced by the administered intraprocedural dose of UFH and were confirmed at multiple sensitivity analyses, including the randomly allocated access site. Conclusions: In patients with ACS, the rates of MACEs and NACEs were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with UFH, irrespective of planned GPI use. However, bivalirudin significantly reduced bleeding complications, mainly those not related to access site, irrespective of planned use of GPIs. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627

Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox (MATRIX) programme was designed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of radial versus femoral access and of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with the whole spectrum of acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Here we describe the prespecified final 1-year outcomes of the entire programme

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .)

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P = 0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P = 0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.) a bs tr ac