Sex‐related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Insight from the cVAD registry

ObjectiveTo assess the in‐hospital and short‐term outcome differences between males and females who underwent high‐risk PCI with mechanical circulatory support (MCS).BackgroundSex differences have been noted in several percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) series with females less likely to be referred for PCI due increased risk of adverse events. However, data on sex differences in utilization and outcomes of high‐risk PCI with MCS is scarce.MethodsUsing the cVAD Registry, we identified 1,053 high‐risk patients who underwent PCI with MCS using Impella 2.5 or Impella CP. Patients with cardiogenic shock were excluded. A total of 792 (75.21%) males and 261 (24.79%) females were included in the analysis with median follow‐up of 81.5 days.ResultsFemales were more likely to be African American, older (72.05 ± 11.66 vs. 68.87 ± 11.17, p < .001), have a higher prevalence of diabetes (59.30 vs. 49.04%, p = .005), renal insufficiency (35.41 vs. 27.39%, p = .018), and peripheral vascular disease (31.89 vs. 25.39%, p of .05). Women had a higher mean STS score (8.21 ± 8.21 vs. 5.04 ± 5.97, p < .001) and lower cardiac output on presentation (3.64 ± 1.30 vs. 4.63 ± 1.49, p < .001). Although women had more comorbidities, there was no difference in in‐hospital mortality, stroke, MI or need for recurrent revascularization compared to males. Females were more likely to have multivessel revascularization than males. Ejection fraction improved in both males and females at the time of discharge (26.59 to 31.40% and 30.75 to 36.05%, respectively, p < .0001). However, females had higher rate of bleeding requiring transfusion compared with males (9.58 vs. 5.30%, p = .019).ConclusionFemale patients undergoing high PCI were older and had more comorbidities but had similar outcomes compared to males.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162726/2/ccd28509_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162726/1/ccd28509.pd

Cognitive Information Processing

Contains research objectives and summary of research on fourteen research projects and reports on four research projects.Joint Services Electronics Program (Contract DAAB07-75-C-1346)National Science Foundation (Grant EPP74-12653)National Science Foundation (Grant ENG74-24344)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 PO1 GM19428-04)Swiss National Funds for Scientific ResearchM.I.T. Health Sciences Fund (Grant 76-11)National Institutes of Health (Grant F03 GM58698)National Institutes of Health (Biomedical Sciences Support Grant)Associated Press (Grant

Finding acute coronary syndrome with serial troponin testing for rapid assessment of cardiac ischemic symptoms (FAST-TRAC): a study protocol.

ObjectiveTo determine the utility of a highly sensitive troponin assay when utilized in the emergency department.MethodsThe FAST-TRAC study prospectively enrolled >1,500 emergency department patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome within 6 hours of symptom onset and 2 hours of emergency department presentation. It has several unique features that are not found in the majority of studies evaluating troponin. These include a very early presenting population in whom prospective data collection of risk score parameters and the physician's clinical impression of the probability of acute coronary syndrome before any troponin data were available. Furthermore, two gold standard diagnostic definitions were determined by a pair of cardiologists reviewing two separate data sets; one that included all local troponin testing results and a second that excluded troponin testing so that diagnosis was based solely on clinical grounds. By this method, a statistically valid head-to-head comparison of contemporary and high sensitivity troponin testing is obtainable. Finally, because of a significant delay in sample processing, a unique ability to define the molecular stability of various troponin assays is possible.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00880802

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Response of field crops to certain soil conditioners

This item was digitized from a paper original and/or a microfilm copy. If you need higher-resolution images for any content in this item, please contact us at [email protected]