Museos y exposiciones de Madrid como oportunidad de trabajar conceptos clave de la sociedad y analizar la experiencia museística ampliada con herramientas tecnológicas de comunicación, en colaboración con estudiantes UCM y Erasmus+Incoming

Este proyecto se enmarca en los trabajos de nuestro grupo para enriquecer el proceso de enseñanza/aprendizaje con la utilización de recursos de los museos y exposiciones de la ciudad. Se propone el uso de los museos como una oportunidad para reflexionar sobre aspectos relevantes de la vida social y sobre la evolución de la tecnología. La actual propuesta se alinea con los trabajos que proponen experiencias museísticas como herramientas de aprendizaje en la educación superior. Se han desarrollado acciones de mejora en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje mediante visitas a los museos de la ciudad adaptándose a las características del visitante universitario. La evaluación se ha realizado mediante un grupo focalizado y un cuestionario de elaboración propia. Además, se utilizan los resultados descritos en el texto “Nuevas herramientas de comunicación de los museos como recurso docente para acercar la cultura a los universitarios” publicado como capítulo del libro “Innovación e investigación docente en educación: experiencias prácticas” (Carcelén García, Narros González, Galmés González, & Díaz Bustamante Ventisca, 2021). Se han presentado resultados derivados de estos trabajos en los siguientes Congresos: INNTED (Congreso Internacional de Innovación y Tendencias Educativas) con la ponencia titulada “Nuevas herramientas de comunicación de los museos como recurso docente para acercar la cultura a los universitarios” y CINDU (Congreso Internacional de Docencia Universitaria) con la ponencia titulada: “Utilización de nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación para atraer a los jóvenes hacia la cultura. Aplicación empírica en museos”.Unidad Dptal. de Organización de Empresas y MarketingFac. de Ciencias de la InformaciónFALSEsubmitte

Documento de la Sociedad Española de Hipertensión-Liga Española para la Lucha contra la Hipertensión Arterial (SEH-LELHA) sobre las guías ACC/AHA 2017 de hipertensión arterial

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have recently published their guidelines for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of hypertension in adults. The most controversial issue is the classification threshold at 130/80 mmHg, which will allow a large number of patients to be diagnosed as hypertensive who were previously considered normotensive. Blood pressure (BP) is considered normal (<120 mmHg systolic and <80 mmHg diastolic), elevated (120-129 and <80 mmHg), stage 1 (130-139 or 80-89 mmHg), and stage 2 (≥140 or ≥90 mmHg). Out-of-office BP measurements are recommended to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and for titration of BP-lowering medication. In management, cardiovascular risk would be determinant since those with grade 1 hypertension and an estimated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ≥10%, and those with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and/or diabetes will require pharmacological treatment, the rest being susceptible to non-pharmacological treatment up to the 140/90 mmHg threshold. These recommendations would allow patients with level 1 hypertension and high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to benefit from pharmacological therapies and all patients could also benefit from improved non-pharmacological therapies. However, this approach should be cautious because inadequate BP measurement and/or lack of systematic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculation could lead to overestimation in diagnosing hypertension and to overtreatment. Guidelines are recommendations, not impositions, and the management of hypertension should be individualized, based on clinical decisions, preferences of the patients, and an adequate balance between benefits and risks

Delays in diagnosis and surgery of sarcoma patients during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain

[Background and objectives] Social distancing and quarantine implanted during the COVID-19 outbreak could have delayed the accession of oncologic patients to hospitals and treatments. This study analysed the management of sarcoma patients during this period in five Spanish hospitals.[Design and methods] Clinical data from adult sarcoma patients, soft tissue and bone sarcomas, managed during the COVID-19 outbreak, from 15 March to 14 September 2020 (Covid cohort), were retrospectively collected and time for diagnosis, surgery and active treatments were compared with sarcoma patients managed during the same pre-pandemic period in 2018 (Control cohort).[Results] A total of 126 and 182 new sarcoma patients were enrolled in the Covid and Control cohorts, respectively, who were mainly diagnosed as soft tissue sarcomas (81.0% and 80.8%) and at localized stage (80.2% and 79.1%). A diagnostic delay was observed in the Covid cohort with a median time for the diagnosis of 102.5 days (range 6–355) versus 83 days (range 5–328) in the Control cohort (p = 0.034). Moreover, a delay in surgery was observed in cases with localized disease from the Covid cohort with a median time of 96.0 days (range 11–265) versus 54.5 days (range 2–331) in the Control cohort (p = 0.034). However, a lower delay for neoadjuvant radiotherapy was observed in the Covid cohort with a median time from the diagnosis to the neoadjuvant radiotherapy of 47 days (range 27–105) versus 91 days (range 27–294) in the Control cohort (p = 0.039). No significant differences for adjuvant radiotherapy, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant/adjuvant palliative chemotherapy were observed between both cohorts. Neither progression-free survival (PFS) nor overall survival (OS) was significantly different.[Conclusion] Delays in diagnosis and surgery were retrospectively observed in sarcoma patients during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain, while the time for neoadjuvant radiotherapy was reduced. However, no impact on the PFS and OS was observed.This research was funded by Pfizer (Title: Observational and translational study of cancer patients infected by covid-19: An European study by EURACAN Network, ID 61589345). This research was also funded by the Consejería de Salud de Andalucía (CV20-67683). DSM received a Sara Borrell postdoctoral fellowship funded by the National Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) (CD20/00155). J.L.M-H received a PFIS predoctoral fellowship funded by the National Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) (FI19/00184).Peer reviewe

Museos y exposiciones en Madrid como oportunidad de trabajar conceptos-clave de las Ciencias Sociales con estudiantes Erasmus+ Incoming en colaboración con estudiantes UCM, asociaciones de estudiantes, oficina de relaciones internacionales y PDI

Proyecto de Innovación que pone en contacto los recursos museísticos y expositivos de Madrid con los estudiantes internacionales para trabajar conceptos-clave en las ciencias sociales, como vulnerabilidad y comunicació

Spanish Society of Hypertension position statement on the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have recently published their guidelines for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of hypertension in adults. The most controversial issue is the classification threshold at 130/80 mmHg, which will allow a large number of patients to be diagnosed as hypertensive who were previously considered normotensive. Blood pressure (BP) is considered normal (&lt;120 mmHg systolic and &lt;80 mmHg diastolic), elevated (120-129 and &lt;80 mmHg), stage 1 (130-139 or 80-89 mmHg), and stage 2 (≥140 or ≥90 mmHg). Out-of-office BP measurements are recommended to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and for titration of BP-lowering medication. In management, cardiovascular risk would be determinant since those with grade 1 hypertension and an estimated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ≥10%, and those with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and/or diabetes will require pharmacological treatment, the rest being susceptible to non-pharmacological treatment up to the 140/90 mmHg threshold. These recommendations would allow patients with level 1 hypertension and high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to benefit from pharmacological therapies and all patients could also benefit from improved non-pharmacological therapies. However, this approach should be cautious because inadequate BP measurement and/or lack of systematic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculation could lead to overestimation in diagnosing hypertension and to overtreatment. Guidelines are recommendations, not impositions, and the management of hypertension should be individualized, based on clinical decisions, preferences of the patients, and an adequate balance between benefits and risksEl American College of Cardiology (ACC) y la American Heart Association (AHA) han publicado recientemente la guía para la prevención, detección, evaluación y tratamiento d de la hipertensión arterial (HTA) en adultos. El punto más controvertido es el umbral diagnóstico de 130/80 mmHg, lo cual conlleva diagnosticar HTA en un gran número de personas previamente consideradas no hipertensas. La presión arterial (PA) se clasifica como normal (sistólica < 120 clínicas y diastólica 80 mmHg), elevada (120-129 y <80 mmHg), grado 1 (130-139 o 80-89 mmHg) y grado2 (≥140 o ≥90 mmHg). Se recomienda la medida de PA fuera de la consulta para confirmar el diagnóstico de HTA o para aumentar el tratamiento. En la toma de decisiones sería determinante el riesgo cardiovascular (RCV), ya que precisarían tratamiento farmacológico personas con HTA grado 1 con riesgo a 10 años de enfermedad cardiovascular aterosclerótica ≥10% y aquellas con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, enfermedad renal crónica y diabetes, siendo el resto susceptibles de medidas no farmacológicas hasta umbrales de 140/90 mmHg. Dichas recomendaciones permitirían a los sujetos con HTA grado 1 y alto RCV beneficiarse de terapias farmacológicas y podrían mejorar las intervenciones no farmacológicas en todos los sujetos. Sin embargo, habría que ser cauteloso ya que sin poder garantizar una toma correcta de PA, ni el cálculo sistemático del RCV, la aplicación de dichos criterios podría sobrestimar el diagnóstico de HTA y suponer un sobretratamiento innecesario. Las guías son recomendaciones, no imposiciones, y el abordaje y manejo de la PA debe ser individualizado, basado en decisiones clínicas, preferencias de los pacientes y en un balance adecuado del beneficio y riesgo al establecer los diferentes objetivos de P

Documento de la Sociedad Española de Hipertensión-Liga Española para la Lucha contra la Hipertensión Arterial (SEH-LELHA) sobre las guías ACC/AHA 2017 de hipertensión arterial

El American College of Cardiology (ACC) y la American Heart Association (AHA) han publicado recientemente la guía para la prevención, detección, evaluación y tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial (HTA) en adultos. El punto más controvertido es el umbral diagnóstico de 130/80 mmHg, lo cual conlleva diagnosticar HTA en un gran número de personas previamente consideradas no hipertensas. La presión arterial (PA) se clasifica como normal (sistólica < 120 y diastólica 80 mmHg), elevada (120-129 y <80 mmHg), grado 1 (130-139 o 80-89 mmHg) y grado 2 (≥140 o ≥90 mmHg). Se recomienda la medida de PA fuera de la consulta para confirmar el diagnóstico de HTA o para aumentar el tratamiento. En la toma de decisiones sería determinante el riesgo cardiovascular (RCV), ya que precisarían tratamiento farmacológico personas con HTA grado 1 con riesgo a 10 años de enfermedad cardiovascular aterosclerótica ≥10% y aquellas con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, enfermedad renal crónica y diabetes, siendo el resto susceptibles de medidas no farmacológicas hasta umbrales de 140/90 mmHg. Dichas recomendaciones permitirían a los sujetos con HTA grado 1 y alto RCV beneficiarse de terapias farmacológicas y podrían mejorar las intervenciones no farmacológicas en todos los sujetos. Sin embargo, habría que ser cauteloso ya que sin poder garantizar una toma correcta de PA, ni el cálculo sistemático del RCV, la aplicación de dichos criterios podría sobrestimar el diagnóstico de HTA y suponer un sobretratamiento innecesario. Las guías son recomendaciones, no imposiciones, y el abordaje y manejo de la PA debe ser individualizado, basado en decisiones clínicas, preferencias de los pacientes y en un balance adecuado del beneficio y riesgo al establecer los diferentes objetivos de PA.The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have recently published their guidelines for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of hypertension in adults. The most controversial issue is the classification threshold at 130/80 mmHg, which will allow a large number of patients to be diagnosed as hypertensive who were previously considered normotensive. Blood pressure (BP) is considered normal (<120 mmHg systolic and <80 mmHg diastolic), elevated (120-129 and <80 mmHg), stage 1 (130-139 or 80-89 mmHg), and stage 2 (≥140 or ≥90 mmHg). Out-of-office BP measurements are recommended to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and for titration of BP-lowering medication. In management, cardiovascular risk would be determinant since those with grade 1 hypertension and an estimated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ≥10%, and those with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and/or diabetes will require pharmacological treatment, the rest being susceptible to non-pharmacological treatment up to the 140/90 mmHg threshold. These recommendations would allow patients with level 1 hypertension and high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to benefit from pharmacological therapies and all patients could also benefit from improved non-pharmacological therapies. However, this approach should be cautious because inadequate BP measurement and/or lack of systematic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculation could lead to overestimation in diagnosing hypertension and to overtreatment. Guidelines are recommendations, not impositions, and the management of hypertension should be individualized, based on clinical decisions, preferences of the patients, and an adequate balance between benefits and risks.Sin financiaciónNo data JCR 20180.129 SJR (2018) Q4, 297/365 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, 113/141 Internal MedicineNo data IDR 2018UE