27 research outputs found
Effects of red light and loud noise on the rate at which monkeys sample the sensory environment
Monkeys, given the opportunity to move between two featureless chambers, 'sample' first one, then the other in a way which reflects a Poisson decision process. The rate of sampling is higher in red light than in blue and in loud noise than in quietness. We suggest that monkeys 'tune' their sampling rate to the a priori probability of change in the environment
How monkeys acquire a new way of seeing
In an experiment on perceptual learning, monkeys were given the opportunity to watch on television the 'private behaviour' of another monkey (whcih did not know it was being watched). The subjects were shown monkey X for twenty sessions in a row, followed by monkey Y for twenty sessions, followed by monkey X again for twenty sessions. The subjects' 'interest' in the stimulus monkey remained roughly level within each block of twenty sessions, but increased in a step-like way at the changeover from X to Y, and again from Y to X. These results are interpreted as evidence that the subects gained little or no extra insight into the nature of private behaviour through watching the same monkey in successive sessions; the critical factor in their perceptual education was the comparison between one monkey's behaviour and another's
The reaction of monkeys to 'fearsome' pictures
Monkeys, given the opportunity to look at a picture which excites both interest and fear, choose first to look at it and only later, once their interest has abated, to avoid it
Effects of Red Light and Loud Noise on the Rate at Which Monkeys Sample the Sensory Environment
The digital divide and ICT learning in rural communities:examples of good practice service delivery
This article aims to gain a greater understanding of relevant and successful methods of stimulating an ICT culture and skills development in rural areas. The paper distils good practice activities, utilizing criteria derived from a review of the rural dimensions of ICT learning, from a range of relevant initiatives and programmes. These good practice activities cover: community resource centres providing opportunities for ‘tasting’ ICTs; video games and Internet Cafe´s as tools removing ‘entry barriers’; emphasis on ‘user management’ as a means of creating ownership; service delivery beyond fixed locations; use of ICT capacities in the delivery of general services; and selected use of financial support
Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio as Predictors of the Placebo-Controlled Response to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Single-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: Physiology-Stratified Analysis of ORBITA
BACKGROUND: There are no data on how fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are associated with the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable single-vessel coronary artery disease.
METHODS: We report the association between prerandomization invasive physiology within ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina), a placebo-controlled trial of patients who have stable angina with angiographically severe single-vessel coronary disease clinically eligible for PCI. Patients underwent prerandomization research FFR and iFR assessment. The operator was blinded to these values. Assessment of response variables, treadmill exercise time, stress echocardiography score, symptom frequency, and angina severity were performed at prerandomization and blinded follow-up. Effects were calculated by analysis of covariance. The ability of FFR and iFR to predict placebo-controlled changes in response variables was tested by using regression modeling.
RESULTS: Invasive physiology data were available in 196 patients (103 PCI and 93 placebo). At prerandomization, the majority had Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II or III symptoms (150/196, 76.5%). Mean FFR and iFR were 0.69±0.16 and 0.76±0.22, respectively; 97% had ≥1 positive ischemia tests. The estimated effect of PCI on between-arm prerandomization-adjusted total exercise time was 20.7 s (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.0 to 45.5; P=0.100) with no interaction of FFR (Pinteraction=0.318) or iFR (Pinteraction=0.523). PCI improved stress echocardiography score more than placebo (1.07 segment units; 95% CI, 0.70-1.44; P<0.00001). The placebo-controlled effect of PCI on stress echocardiography score increased progressively with decreasing FFR (Pinteraction<0.00001) and decreasing iFR (Pinteraction<0.00001). PCI did not improve angina frequency score significantly more than placebo (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.96-2.80; P=0.072) with no detectable evidence of interaction with FFR (Pinteraction=0.849) or iFR (Pinteraction=0.783). However, PCI resulted in more patient-reported freedom from angina than placebo (49.5% versus 31.5%; odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30-4.72; P=0.006) but neither FFR (Pinteraction=0.693) nor iFR (Pinteraction=0.761) modified this effect.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable angina and severe single-vessel disease, the blinded effect of PCI was more clearly seen by stress echocardiography score and freedom from angina than change in treadmill exercise time. Moreover, the lower the FFR or iFR, the greater the magnitude of stress echocardiographic improvement caused by PCI
Placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention for focal and diffuse patterns of stable coronary artery disease
Background:
Physiological assessment with pressure wire pullback can characterize coronary artery disease (CAD) with a focal or diffuse pattern. However, the clinical relevance of this distinction is unknown. We use data from the ORBITA trial (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) to test if the pattern of CAD predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on stress echocardiography ischemia and symptom end points.
Methods:
One hundred sixty-four patients in ORBITA underwent blinded instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) pullback assessment before randomization. Focal disease was defined as a ≥0.03 iFR unit drop within 15 mm, rather than over a longer distance. Analyses were performed using regression modeling.
Results:
In the PCI arm (n=85), 48 were focal and 37 were diffuse. In the placebo arm (n=79), 35 were focal and 44 were diffuse. Focal stenoses were associated with significantly lower fractional flow reserve (FFR) and iFR values than diffusely diseased vessels (mean FFR and iFR, focal 0.60±0.15 and 0.65±0.24, diffuse 0.78±0.10 and 0.88±0.08, respectively, P<0.0001). With adjustment for this difference, PCI for focal stenoses resulted in significantly greater reduction in stress echo ischemia than PCI for diffuse disease (P<0.05). The effect of PCI on between-arm pre-randomization adjusted exercise time was 9.32 seconds (95% CI, −17.1 to 35.7 seconds; P=0.487). When stratified for pattern of disease, there was no detectable difference between focal and diffuse CAD (Pinteraction=0.700). PCI improved Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and freedom from angina more than placebo (P=0.034; P=0.0035). However, there was no evidence of interaction between the physiological pattern of CAD and these effects (Pinteraction=0.436; Pinteraction=0.908).
Conclusions:
PCI achieved significantly greater reduction of stress echocardiography ischemia in focal compared with diffuse CAD. However, for symptom end points, no such difference was observed
Dobutamine stress echocardiography ischemia as a predictor of the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: the stress echo-stratified analysis of ORBITA
BACKGROUND: Dobutamine stress echocardiography is widely used to test for ischemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease. In this analysis, we studied the ability of the prerandomization stress echocardiography score to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within the ORBITA trial (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina).METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography before randomization. The stress echocardiography score is broadly the number of segments abnormal at peak stress, with akinetic segments counting double and dyskinetic segments counting triple. The ability of prerandomization stress echocardiography to predict the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on response variables was tested by using regression modeling.RESULTS: At prerandomization, the stress echocardiography score was 1.56±1.77 in the PCI arm (n=98) and 1.61±1.73 in the placebo arm (n=85). There was a detectable interaction between prerandomization stress echocardiography score and the effect of PCI on angina frequency score with a larger placebo-controlled effect in patients with the highest stress echocardiography score (Pinteraction=0.031). With our sample size, we were unable to detect an interaction between stress echocardiography score and any other patient-reported response variables: freedom from angina (Pinteraction=0.116), physical limitation (Pinteraction=0.461), quality of life (Pinteraction=0.689), EuroQOL 5 quality-of-life score (Pinteraction=0.789), or between stress echocardiography score and physician-assessed Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class (Pinteraction=0.693), and treadmill exercise time (Pinteraction=0.426).CONCLUSIONS: The degree of ischemia assessed by dobutamine stress echocardiography predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on patient-reported angina frequency. The greater the downstream stress echocardiography abnormality caused by a stenosis, the greater the reduction in symptoms from PCI
A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.). [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.