Priorities for Cath labs in the COVID-19 tsunami.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Campo G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7184347 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Priorities for Cath labs in the COVID-19 tsunami.
Campo Gianluca G Rapezzi Claudio C Tavazzi Luigi L Ferrari Roberto R
European heart journal 20200501 19
Similar Datasets
Project description:Intraprocedural stroke is a well-documented and feared potential risk of cardiovascular transcatheter procedures (TPs). Moreover, subclinical neurological events or covert central nervous system infarctions are concerns related to the development of dementia, future stroke, cognitive decline, and increased risk of mortality. Cerebral protection devices (CPDs) were developed to mitigate the risk of cardioembolic embolism during TPs. They are mechanical barriers designed to cover the ostium of the supra-aortic branches in the aortic arch, but newer devices are able to protect the descending aorta. CPDs have been mainly designed and tested to provide cerebral protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but their use in both Catheterization and Electrophysiology laboratories is rapidly increasing. CPDs have allowed us to perform procedures that were previously contraindicated due to high thromboembolic risk, such as in cases of intracardiac thrombosis identified at preprocedural assessment. However, several concerns related to their employment have to be defined. The selection of patients at high risk of thromboembolism is still a subjective choice of each center. The aim of this review is to update the evidence on the use of CPDs in either Cath labs or EP labs, providing an overview of their structural characteristics. Future perspectives focusing on their possible future employment are also discussed.
| S-EPMC10532856 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8233545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine how Americans' opinions of the seriousness of various health-related problems have changed over time and to quantify the public's preferences for research prioritization.MethodsWe conducted a survey that asked respondents to rate the seriousness of 80 health-related problems on a 4-point Likert scale ("very serious problem," "somewhat serious problem," "not too serious of a problem," or "not a problem at all"). Results were compared with past surveys from 2001 and 2013 that examined the same set of health-related problems (with the exception of COVID-19). The survey also included best-worst scaling questions that asked respondents to select, from 20 health problems, those they considered most and least important for research funding. Respondents were recruited from the KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative sample of American households.ResultsA total of 768 adults completed the survey between September 3, 2020, and September 14, 2020. The health-related problems that Americans consider to be "very serious" generally align with the leading causes of death and noncommunicable diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and mental health; nevertheless, several social determinants of health are also identified. COVID-19 was an unsurprising top priority, whereas cancer remains the highest and a persistent priority for research funding.ConclusionsAmericans consider a diverse set of health-related problems to be "very serious," with recognition of social determinants of health rising. Our findings offer guidance as to the disease areas for which the public would value further public and private investment in treatment innovations.
| S-EPMC9040533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered the profile of critical care services internationally, as professionals around the globe have struggled to rise to the unprecedented challenge faced, both in terms of individual patient management and the sheer volume of patients that require treatment and management in intensive care. This review article sets out key priorities in nutritional interventions during the patient journey, both in the acute and recovery phases.Recent findingsThe current review covers the care of the acutely unwell patient, and the evidence base for nutritional interventions in the COVID-19 population. One of the biggest differences in caring for critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure from COVID-19 is often the time prior to intubation. This represents specific nutritional challenges, as does nursing patients in the prone position or in the setting of limited resources. This article goes on to discuss nutritional support for COVID-19 sufferers as they transition through hospital wards and into the community.SummaryNutritional support of patients with severe COVID-19 is essential. Given the longer duration of their critical illness, combined with hypermetabolism and energy expenditure, patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk for malnutrition during and after their hospital stay.
| S-EPMC9247039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeNew training methods sprung up using communication technologies after the suspension imposed on Greek Universities due to restrictive measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. The current questionnaire-based study evaluates the efficacy and utility of the interactive online anatomy labs (ONALs) in assisting the assimilation of anatomy and substituting dissection labs during the pandemic.MethodsONALs consisting of video recorded demonstrations of dissected cadavers were developed so that real-time dialogue and interaction between tutor and students was feasible. First- and second-year medical students who were taught neuroanatomy and splanchnology and first-year dental students who were taught head and neck anatomy evaluated the ONALs.ResultsOne hundred and sixty students participated. The 61 students (38.13%) attended the splanchnology, 58 (36.25%) the neuroanatomy, and 41 (25.63%) the head and neck anatomy course. 86.9% of the participants found the ONALs beneficial for their study. The 75.5% with previous experience of a "face-to-face" dissection replied that the ONALs cannot substitute satisfactorily "face-to-face" dissections. 63.8% replied positively to the ONALs maintenance after the pandemic.ConclusionsThe study's novelty is based on the maintenance of the greater possible interaction between tutors and students during the ONALs, in contrast to the previously described usage of dissection educational videos in anatomy. Our findings reinforce the established statement that "a teaching dissection is an irreplaceable tool in anatomy education". However, the ONALs were well-received by the students and can be kept on as a supplementary teaching modality and can be proven quite useful in Medical Schools that lack cadavers.
| S-EPMC9377668 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8610558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the present COVID-19 crisis, one of the greatest challenges for research funding at both the international and national level is selecting the best research topic to achieve efficiency and equity in health research and to address the knowledge gap urgently raised due to the event. Despite international recommendations, countries should consider their context-specific situation and define local research priorities. We aimed to exercise a priority-setting activity to identify the knowledge gaps and suggest research priorities in response to the COVID-19 epidemic in Iran.MethodsFirst, we tried to identify the contextual knowledge gaps based on an online survey, performing key informant interviews (i.e. health professionals, policy-makers and managers) and media analysis. We also performed a literature review and considered international research priorities for COVID-19. Subsequently, we prepared a list of research questions and challenges to respond to the COVID-19 crisis in Iran using a systems approach. Then we mapped approved COVID-19 research projects in the country to research questions. Finally, we compared the identified research questions (not challenges) with the prioritized research from international organizations and then prioritized them for Iran.ResultsWe found risk factors and epidemiological dissemination patterns of the virus and its consequences in an epidemiology domain, implementation of clinical and hygiene in a clinical management domain, genetic studies for targeting prevention and treatment in a candidate treatment and vaccine research and development (R&D) knowledge domain, examination of the manifestations of ethics in society instead of ethics in research in an ethics domain, "care, access and health system" and "public health and participation in response to public health and clinical research" as two sub-domains of a social sciences domain, and finally, no new questions in either the virology, transmission, diagnosis or animal and environmental domain.ConclusionsIn the event of global health crises like COVID-19, prioritization of research questions can be done globally, but some of the research priorities are context-specific and may vary by regional needs. To better manage research resources, researchers must respond to the challenges faced in each country based on its political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, and to make evidence-informed decisions, global knowledge gaps must be customized in each country.
| S-EPMC8889392 | biostudies-literature