Time filter

Source Type

Plano, TX, United States

Holmes D.R.,Mayo Medical School | Nishimura R.A.,Mayo Medical School | Grover F.L.,University of Colorado at Denver | Brindis R.G.,University of California at San Francisco | And 12 more authors.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Year: 2015

Background The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry has been a joint initiative of the STS and the ACC in concert with multiple stakeholders. The TVT Registry has important information regarding patient selection, delivery of care, science, education, and research in the field of structural valvular heart disease. Objectives This report provides an overview on current U.S. TVT practice and trends. The emphasis is on demographics, in-hospital procedural characteristics, and outcomes of patients having transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performed at 348 U.S. centers. Methods The TVT Registry captured 26,414 TAVR procedures as of December 31, 2014. Temporal trends between 2012 and 2013 versus 2014 were compared. Results Comparison of the 2 time periods reveals that TAVR patients remain elderly (mean age 82 years), with multiple comorbidities, reflected by a high mean STS predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM) for surgical valve replacement (8.34%), were highly symptomatic (New York Heart Association functional class III/IV in 82.5%), frail (slow 5-m walk test in 81.6%), and have poor self-reported health status (median baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score of 39.1). Procedure performance is changing, with an increased use of moderate sedation (from 1.6% to 5.1%) and increase in femoral access using percutaneous techniques (66.8% in 2014). Vascular complication rates are decreasing (from 5.6% to 4.2%), whereas site-reported stroke rates remain stable at 2.2%. Conclusions The TVT Registry provides important information on characteristics and outcomes of TAVR in contemporary U.S. clinical practice. It can be used to identify trends in practice and opportunities for quality improvement. © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Source

Weir V.J.,Baylor Scott and White Health
Physics in Medicine and Biology | Year: 2016

In this paper the scatter component of computed tomography dose profiles is modeled using the solution to a nonlinear ordinary differential equation. This scatter function is summed with a modeled primary function of approximate trapezoidal shape. The primary dose profile is modeled to include the analytic continuation of the Heaviside step function. A mathematical theory is developed in a Banach space. The modeled function is used to accurately fit data from a 256-slice GE Revolution scanner. A 60 cm long body phantom is assembled and used for data collection with both a pencil chamber and a Farmer-type chamber. © 2016 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Source

Schlein K.,Baylor Scott and White Health
Nutrition in Clinical Practice | Year: 2016

Critically ill patients often require enteral feedings as a primary supply of nutrition. Whether enteral nutrition (EN) should be delivered as a gastric versus small bowel feeding in the critically ill patient population remains a contentious topic. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN), and the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CCPG) are not in consensus on this topic. No research to date demonstrates a significant difference between the two feeding routes in terms of patient mortality, ventilator days, or length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU); however, studies provide some evidence that there may be other benefits to using a small bowel feeding route in critically ill patients. The purpose of this paper is to examine both sides of this debate and review advantages and disadvantages of both small bowel and gastric routes of EN. Practical issues and challenges to small bowel feeding tube placement are also addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided to help guide the clinician when selecting a feeding route, and suggestions are made for future research. © 2016 The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Source

Ho T.Q.,Baylor Scott and White Health
Annals of Plastic Surgery | Year: 2016

BACKGROUND: Prompt identification of significant ocular injuries in patients who sustain an orbital fracture is important to prevent any potential long-term visual sequelae. The true incidence of these injuries has not been determined, however. As a consequence, most surgeons choose to have all patients evaluated by an ophthalmologist. The objective of this study was to conclusively identify the incidence of significant ocular injuries in patients with isolated orbital fractures and to determine their predictors to guide more efficient patient care. METHODS: A prospective cohort study powered to detect a 15% incidence of ocular injuries was designed. All patients presenting to our center with computed tomography findings of an isolated orbital fracture were included and evaluated by plastic surgery and ophthalmology services. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 week to identify any delayed injuries. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled from 2012 to 2014. There were 46 men and 34 women with a mean age of 42.8 years. Assault was the most common mechanism of injury. There were 8 ocular injuries (10%): ruptured globe (1), uveal prolapse (1), retrobulbar hemorrhage (2), hyphema (2), hemorrhagic glaucoma with hyphema (1), and scleral tear (1). Predictors for significant ocular injuries were grossly abnormal visual acuity and abnormal pupillary reactivity of the affected eye. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of significant ocular injuries in isolated orbital fractures is lower than previously reported. Patients presenting with grossly abnormal visual acuity or abnormal pupillary reactivity are at high risk and should receive prompt ophthalmology service evaluation. Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Source

Kapadia S.R.,Cleveland Clinic | Leon M.B.,Columbia University | Makkar R.R.,Cedars Sinai Medical Center | Tuzcu E.M.,Cleveland Clinic | And 15 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2015

Summary Background Based on the early results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery. However, little information is available about the late clinical outcomes in such patients. Methods We did this randomised controlled trial at 21 experienced valve centres in Canada, Germany, and the USA. We enrolled patients with severe symptomatic inoperable aortic stenosis and randomly assigned (1:1) them to transfemoral TAVR or to standard treatment, which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The randomisation was done centrally, and sites learned of the assignment only after a patient had been screened, consented, and entered into the database. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population, here we present the prespecified findings after 5 years. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. Findings We screened 3015 patients, of whom 358 were enrolled (mean age 83 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 11·7%, 54% female). 179 were assigned to TAVR treatment and 179 were assigned to standard treatment. 20 patients crossed over from the standard treatment group and ten withdrew from study, leaving only six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study. The risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71·8% in the TAVR group versus 93·6% in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·39-0·65; p<0·0001). At 5 years, 42 (86%) of 49 survivors in the TAVR group had New York Heart Association class 1 or 2 symptoms compared with three (60%) of five in the standard treatment group. Echocardiography after TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1·52 cm2 at 5 years, mean gradient 10·6 mm Hg at 5 years), with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. Interpretation TAVR is more beneficial than standard treatment for treatment of inoperable aortic stenosis. TAVR should be strongly considered for patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and functional status. Appropriate selection of patients will help to maximise the benefit of TAVR and reduce mortality from severe comorbidities. Funding Edwards Lifesciences. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Source

Discover hidden collaborations