New diagnostic and treatment strategies in renal artery stenosis: a promising pursuit or disappointment foretold?

Clinical management of renal artery stenosis has seen a major shift, after randomised clinical trials have shown no group benefit of endovascular intervention relative to optimal medical control. However, the inclusion criteria of these trials have been criticised for focusing on a subset of patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis where intervention was unlikely to be beneficial. Moreover, new imaging and computational techniques have become available, which have the potential to improve identification of patients that will respond to interventional treatment. This review addresses the challenges associated with clinical decision making in patients with renal artery stenosis. Opportunities for novel diagnostic techniques to improve patient selection are discussed, along with ongoing Dutch studies and network initiatives that investigate these strategies

Public Managers, Media Influence, and Governance: Three Research Traditions Empirically Explored

Nowadays, media and media logic have become important and inherent elements in everyday practices of public administration and policy making. However, the logic of the media is often very different from, and conflicting with, the logic of political and administrative life. So the question of how public managers experience and deal with media attention is more relevant than ever. An analytical sketch of the literature on the relationship between public managers and media provides three main categories of literature (public relations, agenda, and mediatization tradition). These three categories are used to develop statements (so-called Q-sort statements) to capture the way public managers experience thei

New diagnostic and treatment strategies in renal artery stenosis: a promising pursuit or disappointment foretold?

Clinical management of renal artery stenosis has seen a major shift, after randomised clinical trials have shown no group benefit of endovascular intervention relative to optimal medical control. However, the inclusion criteria of these trials have been criticised for focusing on a subset of patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis where intervention was unlikely to be beneficial. Moreover, new imaging and computational techniques have become available, which have the potential to improve identification of patients that will respond to interventional treatment. This review addresses the challenges associated with clinical decision making in patients with renal artery stenosis. Opportunities for novel diagnostic techniques to improve patient selection are discussed, along with ongoing Dutch studies and network initiatives that investigate these strategies

New diagnostic and treatment strategies in renal artery stenosis: A promising pursuit or disappointment foretold?

Clinical management of renal artery stenosis has seen a major shift, after randomised clinical trials have shown no group benefit of endovascular intervention relative to optimal medical control. However, the inclusion criteria of these trials have been criticised for focusing on a subset of patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis where intervention was unlikely to be beneficial. Moreover, new imaging and computational techniques have become available, which have the potential to improve identification of patients that will respond to interventional treatment. This review addresses the challenges associated with clinical decision making in patients with renal artery stenosis. Opportunities for novel diagnostic techniques to improve patient selection are discussed, along with ongoing Dutch studies and network initiatives that investigate these strategies

New diagnostic and treatment strategies in renal artery stenosis: A promising pursuit or disappointment foretold?

Clinical management of renal artery stenosis has seen a major shift, after randomised clinical trials have shown no group benefit of endovascular intervention relative to optimal medical control. However, the inclusion criteria of these trials have been criticised for focusing on a subset of patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis where intervention was unlikely to be beneficial. Moreover, new imaging and computational techniques have become available, which have the potential to improve identification of patients that will respond to interventional treatment. This review addresses the challenges associated with clinical decision making in patients with renal artery stenosis. Opportunities for novel diagnostic techniques to improve patient selection are discussed, along with ongoing Dutch studies and network initiatives that investigate these strategies

Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.

BackgroundDiagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician's clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort).Results1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE.ConclusionIn ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE

Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

Background Diagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19. Methods We included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician’s clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort). Results 1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37–5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE. Conclusion In ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE