2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA/ISHLT/ACP Advanced Training Statement on Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology (Revision of the ACCF/AHA/ACP/HFSA/ISHLT 2010 Clinical Competence Statement on Management of Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant)

Since the 1995 publication of its Core Cardiovascular Training Statement (COCATS),1 the American College of Cardiology (ACC) has played a central role in defining the knowledge, experiences, skills, and behaviors expected of all clinical cardiologists upon completion of training. Subsequent updates have incorporated major advances and revisions—both in content and structure—including, most recently,

Adhesive contact problems for a thin elastic layer : Asymptotic analysis and the JKR theory

Contact problems for a thin compressible elastic layer attached to a rigid support are studied. Assuming that the thickness of the layer is much less than the characteristic dimension of the contact area, a direct derivation of asymptotic relations for displacements and stress is presented. The proposed approach is compared with other published approaches. The cases are established when the leading-order approximation to the non-adhesive contact problems is equivalent to contact problem for a Winkler–Fuss elastic foundation. For this elastic foundation, the axisymmetric adhesive contact is studied in the framework of the Johnson–Kendall–Roberts (JKR) theory. The JKR approach has been generalized to the case of the punch shape being described by an arbitrary blunt axisymmetric indenter. Connections of the results obtained to problems of nanoindentation in the case that the indenter shape near the tip has some deviation from its nominal shape are discussed. For indenters whose shape is described by power-law functions, the explicit expressions are derived for the values of the pull-off force and for the corresponding critical contact radius

Predicting Long Term Outcome in Patients Treated With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device: The Penn—Columbia Risk Score

Background: Predicting which patients are unlikely to benefit from continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) treatment is crucial for the identification of appropriate patients. Previously developed scoring systems are limited to past eras of device or restricted to specific devices. Our objective was to create a risk model for patients treated with continuous flow LVAD based on the preimplant variables. Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients implanted with a continuous flow LVAD between 2006 and 2014 at the University of Pennsylvania and included a total of 210 patients (male 78%; mean age, 56±15; mean follow‐up, 465±486 days). From all plausible preoperative covariates, we performed univariate Cox regression analysis for covariates affecting the odds of 1‐year survival following implantation (P<0.2). These variables were included in a multivariable model and dropped if significance rose above P=0.2. From this base model, we performed step‐wise forward and backward selection for other covariates that improved power by minimizing Akaike Information Criteria while maximizing the Harrell Concordance Index. We then used Kaplan–Meier curves, the log‐rank test, and Cox proportional hazard models to assess internal validity of the scoring system and its ability to stratify survival. A final optimized model was identified based on clinical and echocardiographic parameters preceding LVAD implantation. One‐year mortality was significantly higher in patients with higher risk scores (hazard ratio, 1.38; P=0.004). This hazard ratio represents the multiplied risk of death for every increase of 1 point in the risk score. The risk score was validated in a separate patient cohort of 260 patients at Columbia University, which confirmed the prognostic utility of this risk score (P=0.0237). Conclusion: We present a novel risk score and its validation for prediction of long‐term survival in patients with current types of continuous flow LVAD support