Peer education for secondary stroke prevention in inner-city minorities: Design and methods of the Prevent Recurrence of All Inner-city Strokes through Education randomized controlled trial

Background The highest risk for stroke is among survivors of strokes or transient ischemic attacks (TIA). However, use of proven-effective cardiovascular medications to control stroke risk is suboptimal, particularly among the Black and Latino populations disproportionately impacted by stroke. Methods A partnership of Harlem and Bronx community representatives, stroke survivors, researchers, clinicians, outreach workers and patient educators used community-based participatory research to conceive and develop the Prevent Recurrence of All Inner-city Strokes through Education (PRAISE) trial. Using data from focus groups with stroke survivors, they tailored a peer-led, community-based chronic disease self-management program to address stroke risk factors. PRAISE will test, in a randomized controlled trial, whether this stroke education intervention improves blood pressure control and a composite outcome of blood pressure control, lipid control, and use of antithrombotic medications. Results Of the 582 survivors of stroke and TIA enrolled thus far, 81% are Black or Latino and 56% have an annual income less than $15,000. Many (33%) do not have blood pressures in the target range, and most (66%) do not have control of all three major stroke risk factors. Conclusions Rates of stroke recurrence risk factors remain suboptimal in the high risk, urban, predominantly minority communities studied. With a community-partnered approach, PRAISE has recruited a large number of stroke and TIA survivors to date, and may prove successful in engaging those at highest risk for stroke and reducing disparities in stroke outcomes in inner-city communities

When Is a Critically Ill Cirrhotic Patient Too Sick to Transplant? Development of Consensus Criteria by a Multidisciplinary Panel of 35 International Experts.

BackgroundCritically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility.MethodsThirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement.ResultsThe panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or <72 hours of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in case of ongoing sepsis were considered reasons to delay LT. A simple assessment of the number of organs failing was considered the most appropriate way to decide whether LT should be delayed or denied, with respiratory, circulatory and metabolic failures having the most influence in this decision. The thresholds of severity of organ failures contraindicating LT for which a consensus was achieved were a Pao2/FiO2 ratio<150 mm Hg, a norepinephrine dose >1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L.ConclusionsOur expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented

When Is a Critically Ill Cirrhotic Patient Too Sick to Transplant? Development of Consensus Criteria by a Multidisciplinary Panel of 35 International Experts

Background.Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility.Methods.Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement.Results.The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or 1 mu g/kg per minute and a serum lactate level &gt;9 mmol/L.Conclusions.Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented.</p

When Is a Critically Ill Cirrhotic Patient Too Sick to Transplant? Development of Consensus Criteria by a Multidisciplinary Panel of 35 International Experts.

BACKGROUND Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility. METHODS Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement. RESULTS The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or 1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented