Practical Science and Environmental Education Workshop in Manaus, Brazil

It is an unequivocal fact that Amazonian tropical forest is the largest remaining primary forest in the world. The ecosystem in the region is e tremely comple with high biodiversity (Peres et al. 2010). Conservation and protection of the dynamic forest and river regions is e tremely important not only for the natural environments, but also for the economy and social dependence of benefits from such abundant natural environments. Important natural parameters that affect status of the natural environments include light (natural sunlight), soil, and water, which abundantly e ist in the Amazon region. Solar energy is the primary energy source for the majority of living organisms in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and drives the diurnal and seasonal cycles of biogeochemical processes (Monteith & Unsworth 2013). In particular, in situ light data remains one of the most underappreciated data measurements although having a significant impact on the physical, chemical and biological processes in the ecosystem (Johnsen 2012). Soil provides the fundamental basis for all terrestrial living organisms including the Amazonian forests as well as life-sustaining infrastructure for human society. Water is the most essential single entity to constitute all organisms from a single cell to the earth. Understanding of importance and roles of each factor and interaction of such comple dynamics in the natural environments can serve as fundamental platform for natural scientists, particularly for young scientists such as university students. The objective of this workshop was to provide hand- on scientific and environmental education for university students in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil through practical field measurements using the three most important parameters in the natural ecosystem composed of natural sunlight, soil, and water. The workshop was divided into a series of lectures, in situ field sampling, and data processing, analysis and interpretation with the ultimate goal of empowering the undergraduate students with research-centered environmental education and e perience of developing international collaboration.departmental bulletin pape

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons