Comparative results of open lower extremity revascularization in nonagenarians

IntroductionThe average lifespan in the United States continues to lengthen. We have observed a similar trend in our patients, with an increased number of nonagenarians presenting for evaluation of vascular disease. This study evaluated outcomes of lower extremity revascularization in patients aged ≥90 years.MethodsThe vascular registry at Albany Medical College was retrospectively reviewed for all lower extremity bypasses performed between 1996 and 2006. We evaluated patient demographics, indications, procedure, patency rates, and complications. Patients were divided into groups based on age ≥90 years (≥90 group) and <90 years (<90 group). Variables were evaluated by χ2 analysis. Outcomes were prepared using life-table methods and compared with log-rank analysis.ResultsDuring the last 10 years, 5443 lower extremity bypasses were performed on patients aged <90 years and 150 on patients aged ≥90 years. The <90 group had significantly more men (61.4% vs 29.3%) and was obviously younger, at 68 years (range 7-89 years) vs 92 years (range, 90-101 years). The <90 group had more comorbidities in terms of diabetes, active tobacco use, and hypercholesterolemia. No significant difference was noted in coronary artery disease or chronic renal insufficiency between the groups. Critical limb ischemia as an indication was significantly higher in the ≥90 group (149 [99%] vs 4472 [82%]; P < .0.5). Strikingly, the primary patency was significantly higher in the ≥90 group at 4 years (77% vs 62%; P < .05). Complication and amputation rates did not differ between the groups. Perioperative (15% vs 3%; P < .05) and 1-year (45% vs 11%; P < .05) mortality rates were significantly higher in the ≥90 group.ConclusionLower extremity bypass for nonagenarians offers acceptable patency and limb salvage but at a significantly higher mortality rate

Strategies to improve spinal cord ischemia in endovascular thoracic aortic repair: Outcomes of a prospective cerebrospinal fluid drainage protocol

PurposeAlthough endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm has been shown to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates, spinal cord ischemia remains a persistent problem. We evaluated our experience with spinal cord protective measures using a standardized cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage protocol in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic repair.MethodsFrom 2004 to 2006, 121 patients underwent elective (n = 52, 43%) and emergent (n = 69, 57%) endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n = 94, 78%), symptomatic penetrating ulceration (n = 11, 9%), pseudoaneurysms (n = 5, 4%) and traumatic aortic transactions (n = 11, 9%). In 2005, routine use of a CSF drainage protocol was established to minimize the risks of spinal cord ischemia. The CSF was actively drained to maintain pressures <15 mm Hg and the mean arterial blood pressures were maintained at ≥90 mm Hg. Data was prospectively collected in our vascular registry for elective and emergent endovascular thoracic aortic repair and the patients were divided into 2 groups (+CSF drainage protocol, −CSF drainage protocol). A χ2 statistical analysis was performed and significance was assumed for P < .05.ResultsOf the 121 patients with thoracic stent graft placement, the mean age was 72 years, 62 (51%) were male, and 56 (46%) underwent preoperative placement of a CSF drain, while 65 (54%) did not. Both groups had similar comorbidities of coronary artery disease (24 [43%] vs 27 [41%]), hypertension (44 [79%] vs 50 [77%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18 [32%] vs 22 [34%]), and chronic renal insufficiency (10 [17%] vs 12 [18%]). None of the patients with CSF drainage developed spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and 5 (8%) of the patients without CSF drainage developed SCI within 24 hours of endovascular repair (P< .05). All patients with clinical symptoms of SCI had CSF drain placement and augmentation of systemic blood pressures to ≥90 mm Hg, and 60% (3 of 5 patients) demonstrated marked clinical improvement.ConclusionPerioperative CSF drainage with augmentation of systemic blood pressures may have a beneficial role in reducing the risk of paraplegia in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement. However, selective CSF drainage may offer the same benefit as mandatory drainage

What impact do posters have on academic knowledge transfer? A pilot survey on author attitudes and experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research knowledge is commonly facilitated at conferences via oral presentations, poster presentations and workshops. Current literature exploring the efficacy of academic posters is however limited. The purpose of this initial study was to explore the perceptions of academic poster presentation, together with its benefits and limitations as an effective mechanism for academic knowledge transfer and contribute to the available academic data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A survey was distributed to 88 delegates who presented academic posters at two Releasing Research and Enterprise Potential conferences in June 2007 and June 2008 at Bournemouth University. This survey addressed attitude and opinion items, together with their general experiences of poster presentations. Descriptive statistics were performed on the responses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A 39% return was achieved with the majority of respondents believing that posters are a good medium for transferring knowledge and a valid form of academic publication. Visual appeal was cited as more influential than subject content, with 94% agreeing that poster imagery is most likely to draw viewer's attention. Respondents also believed that posters must be accompanied by their author in order to effectively communicate the academic content.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This pilot study is the first to explore perceptions of the academic poster as a medium for knowledge transfer. Given that academic posters rely heavily on visual appeal and direct author interaction, the medium requires greater flexibility in their design to promote effective knowledge transfer. This paper introduces the concept of the IT-based 'MediaPoster' so as to address the issues raised within published literature and subsequently enhance knowledge-transfer within the field of academic medicine.</p

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training