Gender differences exist in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery but have yet to be fully explored after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. ...We aimed to investigate gender differences after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the UK National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry. A retrospective analysis was performed of Medtronic CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN implantation in 1,627 patients (756 women) from January 2007 to December 2010. Men had more risk factors: poor left ventricular systolic function (11.9% vs 5.5%, p <0.001), 3-vessel disease (19.4% vs 9.2%, p <0.001), previous myocardial infarction (29.5% vs 13.0%, p <0.001), peripheral vascular disease (32.4% vs 23.3%, p <0.001), and higher logistic EuroSCORE (21.8 ± 14.2% vs 21.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.046). Thirty-day mortality was 6.3% (confidence interval 4.3% to 7.9%) in women and 7.4% (5.6% to 9.2%) in men and at 1 year, 21.9% (18.7% to 25.1%) and 22.4% (19.4% to 25.4%), respectively. There was no mortality difference: p = 0.331 by log-rank test; hazard ratio for women 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10). Procedural success (96.6% in women vs 96.4% in men, p = 0.889) and 30-day cerebrovascular event rates (3.8% vs 3.7%, p = 0.962) did not differ. Women had more major vascular complications (7.5% vs 4.2%, p = 0.004) and less moderate or severe postprocedural aortic regurgitation (7.5% vs 12.5%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, despite a higher risk profile in men, there was no gender-related mortality difference; however, women had more major vascular complications and less postprocedural moderate or severe aortic regurgitation.
Summary Background Administration of vaccines by needle-free technology such as jet injection might offer an alternative to needles and syringes that avoids the issue of needle phobia and the risk of ...needle-stick injury. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of trivalent influenza vaccine given by needle-free jet injector compared with needle and syringe. Methods For this randomised, comparator-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) healthy adults (aged 18–64 years) who attended one of four employee health clinics in the University of Colorado health system, with stratification by site, to receive one dose of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine Afluria given either intramuscularly with a needle-free jet injector (Stratis; PharmaJet, Golden, CO, USA) or with needle and syringe. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of 100. Because of the nature of the study, masking of participants was not possible. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of the hemagglutination inhibition antibody titres in serum for the three viral strains included in the vaccine. We included six coprimary endpoints: three strain-specific geometric mean titre ratios and the absolute differences in three strain-specific seroconversion rates. The immune response of the jet injector group was regarded as non-inferior to that of the needle and syringe group if both the upper bound of each of the three 95% CIs for the strain-specific geometric mean titre ratios was 1.5 or less, and the upper bound of the three 95% CIs for the strain-specific seroconversion rate differences was less than 10 percentage points. We used t test for group comparison. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01688921. Findings During the 2012–13 influenza season of the northern hemisphere, we allocated 1250 participants to receive vaccination by needle-free jet injector (n=627) or needle and syringe (n=623). In the intention-to-treat immunogenicity population, all participants with two serum samples were included (575 in the jet injector group and 574 in the needle and syringe group). The immune response to Afluria when given by needle-free jet injector met the criteria for non-inferiority for all six coprimary endpoints. The jet injector group met the geometric mean titre criterion for non-inferiority for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (upper bound of the 95% CI for the geometric mean titre ratios were 1·10 for A/H1N1, 1·17 for A/H3N2, and 1·04 for B strains). The jet injector group met the seroconversion rate criterion for non-inferiority for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (upper bound of the 95% CI of the seroconversion rate differences were 6·0% for A/H1N1, 7·0% for A/H3N2, and 5·7% for B strains). We recorded serious adverse events in three participants, none of which were study related. Interpretation The immune response to influenza vaccine given with the jet injector device was non-inferior to the immune response to influenza vaccine given with needle and syringe. The device had a clinically acceptable safety profile, but was associated with a higher frequency of local injection site reactions than was the use of needle and syringe. The Stratis needle-free jet injector device could be used as an alternative method of administration of Afluria trivalent influenza vaccine. Funding Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), PATH, bioCSL, and PharmaJet.
Background Constructive feedback plays an important role in learning during surgical training. Standard feedback is usually given verbally following direct observation of the procedure by a trained ...assessor. However, such feedback requires the physical presence of expert faculty members who are usually busy and time-constrained by clinical commitments. We aim to evaluate electronic feedback (e-feedback) after video observation of surgical suturing in comparison with standard face-to-face verbal feedback. Methods A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing e-feedback with standard verbal feedback was carried out in February 2015 using a validated pro formas for assessment. The study participants were 38 undergraduate medical students from the University of Sheffield, UK. They were recorded on video performing the procedural skill, completed a self-evaluation form, and received e-feedback on the same day (group 1); observed directly by an assessor, invited to provide verbal self-reflection, and then received standard verbal feedback (group 2). In both groups, the feedback was provided after performing the procedure. The participants returned 2 days later and performed the same skill again. Poststudy questionnaire was used to assess the acceptability of each feedback among the participants. Results Overall, 19 students in group 1 and 18 students in group 2 completed the study. Although there was a significant improvement in the overall mean score on the second performance of the task for all participants (first performance mean 11.59, second performance mean 15.95; p ≤ 0.0001), there was no difference in the overall mean improvement score between group 1 and group 2 (4.74 and 3.94, respectively; p = 0.49). The mean overall scores for the e-feedback group at baseline recorded by 2 independent investigators showed good agreement (mean overall scores of 12.84 and 11.89; Cronbach α = 0.86). Poststudy questionnaire demonstrated that both e-feedback and standard verbal feedback achieved high mean Likert grades as recorded by the participants (4.42 range: 2-5 and 4.71 range: 4-5, respectively; p = 0.274). Conclusion e-Feedback after watching a video recording appears to be acceptable and is not quantitatively different than standard feedback in improving suturing skills among novice trainees. Video assessment of procedural skills is reliable.
PDF