Relational care and co-operative endeavour:Reshaping dementia care through participatory secondary data analysis

Dementia is emerging from the shadows of societal exclusion and stigma. The engagement within society for people who are marginalised is coconstructed through the everyday practices that take place between them and those around them. However, this is inherently political, positioning people as active and activist in the relationship of their lives with their communities. The research aimed to interrogate an existing qualitative dataset in partnership with people living with dementia to inform the development of a way of working with people with dementia that is empowering. In this qualitative secondary data analysis project, we (1) analysed data through two theoretical lenses: Douglas’ cultural theory of risk and Tronto’s Ethic of Care, and (2) co-analysed the data together with people living with dementia during 14 workshops. The design involved cycles of presenting, interpreting, representing and reinterpreting the data and findings between multiple stakeholders. We identified a granular understanding of the way relationships change for people with dementia and how subtle factors and nuanced behaviour contribute to social exclusion, or support social inclusion. The results support relational care through the co-operative endeavour (of co-operative communication, cooperative action and co-operative care) in promoting the inclusion of people living with dementia

Bleeding risk and outcomes of Bivalirudin versus Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors with targeted low-dose unfractionated Heparin in patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for either stable or unstable angina pectoris

For patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin was previously shown to significantly reduce bleeding complications at the cost of a modest increase in ischemic events compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). However, the excess bleeding in patients treated with UFH and GPIs may have been caused by excessively high UFH doses and increased activated clotting times. This study sought to determine the bleeding risk of targeted low-dose UFH with GPIs compared with bivalirudin in patients undergoing elective PCI. Of 1,205 patients undergoing elective PCI, 602 underwent PCI with adjunctive UFH and GPIs with the UFH dose targeted to an activated clotting time of approximately 250 seconds, and 603 patients matched for baseline characteristics underwent PCI with bivalirudin. Outcomes were analyzed for major bleeding (hematocrit decrease >15%, gastrointestinal bleed, or major hematoma) and 6-month major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization). The maximum activated clotting time achieved was 261.7 +/- 61.6 seconds in the UFH/GPI group and 355.4 +/- 66.6 in the bivalirudin group (p <0.001). In-hospital major bleeding rates were similar between groups (1.8% UFH/GPI vs 1.7% bivalirudin; p = 0.83), as were transfusion requirements (1.2% UFH/GPI vs 0.5% bivalirudin; p = 0.61). The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rate was also similar between groups (9.5% UFH/GPI vs 9.0% bivalirudin; p = 0.81). In conclusion, there were no significant differences in major bleeding and 6-month major adverse cardiac events for patients undergoing elective PCI treated with targeted low-dose UFH and GPIs compared with those treated with bivalirudin.5 page(s

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after coronary stenting in clinical practice: results of an EAPCI survey

Aims: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the EuropeanAssociation of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) concerning opinion on the evidence relating to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after coronary stenting.Methods and results: Results from three randomised clinical trials were scheduled to be presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2014 (ARIA 2014). A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered in the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200) both before and after ARIA 2014. A total of 1,134 physicians responded to the first (i.e., before AHA 2014) and 542 to the second (i.e., after ARIA 2014) survey. The majority of respondents interpreted trial results consistent with a substantial equipoise regarding the benefits and risks of an extended versus a standard DAPT strategy. Two respondents out of ten believed extended DAFT should be implemented in selected patients. After ARIA 2014, 46.1% of participants expressed uncertainty about the available evidence on DAFT duration, and 40.0% the need for clinical guidance.Conclusions: This EAPCI survey highlights considerable uncertainty within the medical community with regard to the optimal duration of DAFT after coronary stenting in the light of recent reported trial results. Updated recommendations for practising physicians to guide treatment decisions in routine clinical practice should be provided by international societies