Decidedly Uncertain

My capstone project is meant to reflect the ideas I’ve been exposed to and the ways in which they have, as a consequence, influenced my life; the ways, I suppose, I can apply them. Over the course, or courses (literally), of my time spent at The CUNY Graduate Center, I felt (mostly) enthusiastic about the ideas and philosophies I was growing to at-least-marginally understand. However, as time passed I became increasingly more unsettled about my position as an “academic.” In other words, I found that I was moved and motivated to increase my understanding of things, but never did I feel like I had any solid footing, especially when I was encouraged to pursue the specialized version of research/writing/applying knowledge. For example: in philosophy classes I felt less abstract and more creative; in research classes I felt less focused and more sprawling; in comparative classes I felt more philosophically inclined than literature-oriented. I was always lacking some foundation to draw everything back to and was always in the process of comparing different disciplines rather than specializing in them. It was--or maybe just I was a bit of a mess. In any case, the mess isn’t something inherently negative. A Liberal Studies degree cultivates an ability to perspective switch, if you will, and I think this is invaluable. I do not, however, find that any one point of view is “better” than another and it has only become more difficult for me to formulate arguments. I contradict myself, wittingly or not, because I invariably bring to mind another specialization’s lens or framework and this means, often times, a disruption in the compatibility of whatever argument I’m attempting to convey or, as some philosophical proofs call for, “prove.” This has become a huge part of my experience as student and I my goal was to be able to create a piece of work that conveyed all these angles I find both appealing and simultaneously contradictory. At this point, I’ve thought back to who I think most interests me and, as a consequence, has likely most influenced y work. The names I’ve come up with are writers Jorge Luis Borges and W.G. Sebald. Many of my courses intersected these writers/thinkers and it seemed they were confounded over some of the same issues. Perspective, memory and relative understanding, specifically. What I really like about them, in addition, is that their “trade” or focus, discipline, perspective etc., is more ambiguous and less straightforward. They blend genres, alter reality and incorporate the art of narrative. This is exactly what I’ve tried to do. I’ve attempted to compile a kind “fantastical memoir” where I draw from academic experience, random interactions and end beyond as a means to create a composite of experience. My experience has not been anything particularly individual in nature. I feel like when I talk to many of the people I happen across within the course of a day (whether at school, at the coffee shop, the yoga studio I teach at), everyone is blindly but enthusiastically ( like me) seeking out reason and balance in this life and the result is something that appears to be totally scattered. My aim is that by writing a memoir that is in part my own, but part a composite of other’s experiences, I might be able to capture some kind of understanding or truth about what it’s like to be a human-- at least a human, in their twenties, in NYC, who has a mild idea about where they’ve come from and where they’d like to go The result is a semi-accurate portrayal of what acquiring a Liberal Studies feels like; that is, something scattered and chaotic but overall enjoyable

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Patients with Cardiac Sarcoidosis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93643/1/j.1540-8167.2012.02350.x.pd

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks

HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS/ACC/AHA worldwide practice update for telehealth and arrhythmia monitoring during and after a pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), started in the city of Wuhan late in 2019. Within a few months, the disease spread toward all parts of the world and was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The current health care dilemma worldwide is how to sustain the capacity for quality services not only for those suffering from COVID-19 but also for non-COVID-19 patients, all while protecting physicians, nurses, and other allied health care workers

Relationship between Low Bone Mineral Density and Fractures with Incident Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

An increasing evidence base suggests that low bone mineral density (BMD) and fractures are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the evidence of low BMD and fractures as risk factors for future CVD. Two independent authors searched major databases from inception to 1st August 2016 for longitudinal studies reporting data on CVD incidence (overall and specific CVD) and BMD status and fractures. The association between low BMD, fractures and CVD across longitudinal studies was explored by calculating pooled adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a random-effects meta-analysis. Twenty-eight studies (18 regarding BMD and 10 fractures) followed-up a total of 1,107,885 participants for a median of 5 years. Taking those with higher BMD as the reference, people with low BMD were at increased risk of developing CVD during follow-up (11 studies; HR = 1.33; 95%CI: 1.27-1.38; I2  = 53%), after adjusting for a median of 8 confounders. This finding was confirmed using a decrease in one standard deviation of baseline BMD (9 studies; HR = 1.16; 95%CI: 1.09-1.24; I2  = 69%). The presence of fractures at baseline was associated with an increased risk of developing CVD (HR = 1.20; 95%CI: 1.06-1.37; I2  = 91%). Regarding specific CVD, low BMD was associated with an increased risk of developing coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular conditions, and CVD associated death. Fractures at baseline was associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular conditions and death due to CVD. In conclusion, low BMD and fractures are associated with a small, but significant increased risk of CVD risk and possibly death