CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency department: utilization and positivity rates during various phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the trends in utilization and results of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA study) for detection of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the Emergency Department (ED) during different phases of COVID-19 public health emergency. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of CTPA studies ordered through our ED in the months of March through May during five consecutive years from 2019 to 2023, designated as pre-pandemic, early, ongoing, recovery, and post-pandemic periods respectively. Collected characteristics included patient age, patient sex, and result of the study. RESULTS: The utilization of CTPA studies for ED patients increased during the early, ongoing, and recovery periods. CTPA study utilization in the post-pandemic period was not significantly different from the pre-pandemic period (p = 0.08). No significant difference in CTPA study utilization was noted in the other periods when stratified by age group or sex, compared to the pre-pandemic period. The positivity rate of acute PE in ED patients was not significantly different in other periods compared to the pre-pandemic period. CONCLUSION: At our institution, the utilization and positivity rates of CTPA studies for the ED patients were not significantly different in the post-pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period. While studies spanning a larger timeframe and involving multiple institutions are needed to test the applicability of this observation to a wider patient population beyond our defined post-pandemic period, we conclude that our study provides some confidence to the ordering provider and the radiologist in embracing the end of COVID-19 public health emergency by the WHO and the United States HHS with respect to CTPA studies.

Academic medicine's glass ceiling: Author's gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. RESULTS: Compared to 37.23% of 2002 - 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women's first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and co-authors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Since 2002, this authorship "gender disparity chasm" has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet's 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation.

Ten-Year Outcomes of Off-Pump vs On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Department of Veterans Affairs: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The long-term benefits of off-pump ("beating heart") vs on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 10-year outcomes and costs of off-pump vs on-pump CABG in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From February 27, 2002, to May 7, 2007, 2203 veterans in the ROOBY trial were randomly assigned to off-pump or on-pump CABG procedures at 18 participating VA medical centers. Per protocol, the veterans were observed for 10 years; the 10-year, post-CABG clinical outcomes and costs were assessed via centralized abstraction of electronic medical records combined with merges to VA and non-VA databases. With the use of an intention-to-treat approach, analyses were performed from May 7, 2017, to December 9, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: On-pump and off-pump CABG procedures. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 10-year coprimary end points included all-cause death and a composite end point identifying patients who had died or had undergone subsequent revascularization (ie, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or repeated CABG); these 2 end points were measured dichotomously and as time-to-event variables (ie, time to death and time to composite end points). Secondary 10-year end points included PCIs, repeated CABG procedures, changes in cardiac symptoms, and 2018-adjusted VA estimated costs. Changes from baseline to 10 years in post-CABG, clinically relevant cardiac symptoms were evaluated for New York Heart Association functional class, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, and atrial fibrillation. Outcome differences were adjudicated by an end points committee. Given that pre-CABG risks were balanced, the protocol-driven primary and secondary hypotheses directly compared 10-year treatment-related effects. RESULTS: A total of 1104 patients (1097 men [99.4%]; mean [SD] age, 63.0 [8.5] years) were enrolled in the off-pump group, and 1099 patients (1092 men [99.5%]; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.5] years) were enrolled in the on-pump group. The 10-year death rates were 34.2% (n = 378) for the off-pump group and 31.1% (n = 342) for the on-pump group (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.11; P = .12). The median time to composite end point for the off-pump group (4.6 years; IQR, 1.4-7.5 years) was approximately 4.3 months shorter than that for the on-pump group (5.0 years; IQR, 1.8-7.9 years; P = .03). No significant 10-year treatment-related differences were documented for any other primary or secondary end points. After the removal of conversions, sensitivity analyses reconfirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: No off-pump CABG advantages were found for 10-year death or revascularization end points; the time to composite end point was lower in the off-pump group than in the on-pump group. For veterans, in the absence of on-pump contraindications, a case cannot be made for supplanting the traditional on-pump CABG technique with an off-pump approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01924442.

Clinical and Angiographic Predictors of Patient-Reported Angina 1 Year After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the relationship between patient self-reported angina symptoms using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and angiographic findings after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) are lacking. Nested within a randomized controlled trial, this prospective observational cohort comparison study aimed to assess which clinical characteristics and angiographic findings are associated with self-reported angina 1 year after CABG. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from the ROOBY trial (Randomized On/Off Bypass) with protocol-specified 1-year post-CABG coronary angiography and SAQ assessments were included (n=1258). Patients reporting no angina (62.3%) within 4 weeks before the 1-year post-CABG study visit on the SAQ angina frequency domain were compared with patients reporting angina (37.7%). Multivariable modeling identified clinical variables and angiographic findings associated with angina. Sequential univariate and multivariable modeling found the following demographic and clinical factors were associated with angina after CABG: younger age, worse preoperative SAQ angina frequency score, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and pre-CABG depression. The only 1-year angiographic finding significantly associated with angina was incomplete revascularization of the left anterior descending (LAD) territory. Graft occlusions, incomplete revascularization of non-LAD territories, and ≥70% lesions in nonrevascularized native coronary arteries were not correlated with the presence or absence of angina. Further, only 30.6% of subjects reporting angina at 1 year had a residual major coronary artery stenosis of ≥70%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported angina 1 year after CABG is associated with younger age, worse baseline SAQ angina frequency score, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and depression. The only angiographic finding associated with angina was a poorly revascularized LAD territory. These results may help guide physicians when counseling patients on expected improvements in angina symptoms and in making decisions regarding the need for coronary angiography after CABG. Whether intensive treatment of these comorbidities improves post-CABG angina symptoms requires further study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00032630.

Off-Pump Versus On-Pump Impact: Diabetic Patient 5-Year Coronary Artery Bypass Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: For diabetic patients who require coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) operation, controversy persists whether an off-pump or an on-pump approach may be advantageous. This US-based, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, Department of Veterans Affairs Randomization On versus Off Bypass Follow-up Study, compared diabetic patients' 5-year clinical outcomes for off-pump versus on-pump procedures. METHODS: From 2002 to 2008, 835 medically treated (ie, oral hypoglycemic agent or insulin) diabetic patients underwent either off-pump (n = 402) or on-pump (n = 433) CABG. Five-year primary end points included all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization). Secondary 5-year end points included cardiac death and MACE-related components. With baseline risk factors balanced, outcomes were evaluated by using a p value less than or equal to 0.01; nonsignificant trends were reported for p values greater than 0.01 and less than or equal to 0.15. RESULTS: Five-year all-cause death rates were 20.2% off pump versus 14.1% on pump (p = 0.0198). No differences were seen in MACE (32.6% off-pump approach versus 28.6% on-pump approach, p = 0.216), repeat revascularization (12.4% off-pump approach versus 11.8% on-pump approach, p = 0.770), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (12.7% off-pump approach versus 10.4% on-pump approach, p = 0.299). Cardiac death trended worse with off-pump CABG (9.0%) than with on-pump CABG (6.25%, p = 0.137). Sensitivity analyses that removed conversions confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: With a 6.1% absolute difference, a strong trend toward improved 5-year survival was observed with on-pump CABG for medically treated diabetic patients. No off-pump advantage was found for any 5-year end points. A future clinical trial now appears warranted to rigorously compare off-pump versus on-pump longer term outcomes for diabetic patients.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a systematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgical procedures (LSP) have grown in popularity due to their purported benefits of improved effectiveness and efficiency. This study summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews' (CSRs') evidence comparing the use of LSP versus open procedures used for surgical patient management and comparing the CSRs' quality and consistency of LSP evidence reported across time and different surgical specialties. METHODS: The Cochrane Database was searched to identify CSRs comparing LSP versus open procedures; 36 CSRs and 15 CSR protocols were found as of February 16, 2016. Each CSR's clinical outcomes and major conclusions were evaluated; CSR's quality and completeness were assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria. Overall, CSRs' reporting variations across specialties and trends over time were summarized. RESULTS: A weighted analysis across all 36 CSRs found improved outcomes with LSP (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88, 0.92). Substantial CSR variation was found in the patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinical endpoints used. Individually, most CSR analyses showed no significant difference (65.4%) between LSP versus open procedures; 25.8% showed a LSP benefit versus 8.9% an open benefit. As a major conclusion, a positive LSP impact was documented by 8/36 (22.2%) CSRs; but only half of these CSRs decisively concluded that there was a LSP advantage. Undeclared conflicts of interest were identified in 9/36 CSRs (25.0%), raising the potential for a reporting bias. Both CSR variabilities (i.e., missing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design statements) and PRISMA-related deficiencies were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CSR evidence supports a LSP advantage; however, clinical decisions must be driven by CSR procedure-specific evidence. Variations and inconsistencies in CSR design and reporting identified future opportunities to improve CSR quality by increasing the methodological transparency, standardizing CSR reporting, and documenting comprehensively any non-financial conflicts of interest (i.e., ongoing research and historical publications) for all CSR team members.

Bridging the gap to effective feedback in residency training: perceptions of trainees and teachers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical feedback is an important part of residency training, yet literature suggests this complex interaction is not completely understood. In particular, little is known about what resident versus attending physicians expect as feedback. This study investigates this gap in knowledge by examining differences in interactions that residents and attendings view as feedback. METHODS: Surveys containing sample clinical feedback scenarios were distributed to residents and attending physicians in emergency medicine and general surgery at a large academic medical center. Respondents were asked to decide whether useful feedback was provided in each scenario, and responses were compared between the two groups. Continuous features were summarized with medians, interquartile ranges (IQRs), and ranges; categorical features were summarized with frequency counts and percentages. Comparisons of features between residents and attendings were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests. Statistical analyses were performed using version 9.4 of the SAS software package (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC). All tests were two-sided and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Seventy-two individuals responded to the survey out of approximately 110 invitations sent (65%), including 35 (49%) residents and 37 (51%) attendings. Of 35 residents, 31 indicated their level of training, which included 13 (42%) PGY-1, 9 (29%) PGY-2, 6 (19%) PGY-3, and 3 (10%) PGY-4, respectively. Of 37 attendings, 34 indicated the number of years since completion of residency or last fellowship, at a median of 9 years (IQR 4-14; range 1-31). No significant difference was found in residents' and attendings' perceptions of what constituted feedback in the sample scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: While this study did not find a statistical difference in perception of feedback between residents and attendings, additional factors should be considered when investigating perceived feedback deficiencies. Further research is needed to better understand and improve the clinical feedback process.

Anti-factor Xa Monitoring and Activated Charcoal for a Pediatric Patient With Rivaroxaban Overdose.

Rivaroxaban, an oral anticoagulant, directly inhibits factor Xa (FXa). A 35-month-old boy was brought to the emergency department 15 minutes after ingesting 200 mg of rivaroxaban (16 mg/kg). Activated charcoal (AC) was administered; the patient was observed with monitoring of plasma anti-FXa levels and discharged the following day after an uneventful hospital observation. We identified two case series and seven case reports of potentially toxic rivaroxaban ingestion in the literature. No serious adverse effects were reported. The present case is the first reported use of anti-FXa monitoring after rivaroxaban ingestion. The magnitude of the effect of AC administration in this patient is unclear.

Comparison of Outcomes and Costs Associated With Aspirin ± Clopidogrel After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Optimal antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains controversial. This study evaluated the role of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin and clopidogrel (DAPT) versus antiplatelet therapy using aspirin only (ASA) on post-CABG clinical outcomes and costs. In the Department of Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial, clopidogrel use after CABG was prospectively collected beginning in year 2 of this study to include 1,525 of the 2,203 original ROOBY patients who received aspirin after CABG. Discretionarily, surgeons after CABG administered either DAPT or ASA treatments. The ROOBY trial's primary 30-day composite (mortality or perioperative morbidity), 1-year composite (all-cause death, repeat revascularization, or nonfatal myocardial infarction), and costs were compared for these 2 strategies. Of the 1,525 subjects, 511 received DAPT and 1,014 received ASA. DAPT subjects, compared with ASA subjects, had lower rates of preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45% (78.8% vs 85.7%, p <0.001), on-pump CABG (36.6% vs 57.1%, p = 0.001), and endoscopic vein harvesting (30.0% vs 42.8%, p <0.001). ASA patients were more likely to have earlier aspirin administration and receive 325 versus 81 mg dosages. The 30-day composite outcome rate was significantly lower for DAPT patients compared with ASA patients (3.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.003), but the 1-year composite outcome was equal between the 2 groups (12.0% vs12.0%, p = 1.0). At 1 year, there were no cost differences between the 2 groups. Propensity analyses did not significantly alter the results. In conclusion, DAPT appeared safe and was associated with fewer 30-day adverse outcomes than aspirin only and with no 1-year outcome or cost differences.

Concordance between administrative data and clinical review for mortality in the randomized on/off bypass follow-up study (ROOBY-FS).

BACKGROUND: The optimal methodology to identify cardiac versus non-cardiac cause of death following cardiac surgery has not been determined. METHODS: The Randomized On/Off Bypass Trial was a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 2203 patients (February 2002-May 2008) comparing 1-year cardiac outcomes between off-pump and on-pump bypass surgery. In 2013, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program funded a follow-up study to assess 5-year outcomes including mortality. Deaths were identified and confirmed using the National Death Index (NDI), VA Vital Status file, and medical records. An Endpoints Committee (EC) reviewed patient medical records and classified each cause of death as cardiac, non-cardiac, or unknown. Using pre-determined ICD-10 codes, NDI death certificates were independently used to classify deaths as cardiac or non-cardiac. Cause of death was compared between the NDI and EC classifications and concordance measured, using Kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of the 297 5-year deaths identified by the NDI and/or VA vital status file and confirmed by the EC, 219 had adequate patient records for EC cause of death determination. The EC adjudicated 141 of these deaths as non-cardiac and 78 as cardiac, while the NDI classified 150 as non-cardiac and 69 as cardiac; agreement was 77.6% (kappa 0.500; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Since concordance between EC and NDI cause of death classifications was only moderate, caution should be exercised in relying exclusively on NDI data to determine cause of death. A hybrid approach, integrating multiple information sources, may provide the most accurate approach to classifying cause of death.

Long-Term Post-CABG Survival: Performance of Clinical Risk Models Versus Actuarial Predictions.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Clinical risk models are commonly used to predict short-term coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) mortality but are less commonly used to predict long-term mortality. The added value of long-term mortality clinical risk models over traditional actuarial models has not been evaluated. To address this, the predictive performance of a long-term clinical risk model was compared with that of an actuarial model to identify the clinical variable(s) most responsible for any differences observed. METHODS: Long-term mortality for 1028 CABG patients was estimated using the Hannan New York State clinical risk model and an actuarial model (based on age, gender, and race/ethnicity). Vital status was assessed using the Social Security Death Index. Observed/expected (O/E) ratios were calculated, and the models' predictive performances were compared using a nested c-index approach. Linear regression analyses identified the subgroup of risk factors driving the differences observed. RESULTS: Mortality rates were 3%, 9%, and 17% at one-, three-, and five years, respectively (median follow-up: five years). The clinical risk model provided more accurate predictions. Greater divergence between model estimates occurred with increasing long-term mortality risk, with baseline renal dysfunction identified as a particularly important driver of these differences. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term mortality clinical risk models provide enhanced predictive power compared to actuarial models. Using the Hannan risk model, a patient's long-term mortality risk can be accurately assessed and subgroups of higher-risk patients can be identified for enhanced follow-up care. More research appears warranted to refine long-term CABG clinical risk models.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: The Driving Force for Improvement in Cardiac Surgery.

Initiated in 1989, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) includes more than 1085 participating centers, representing 90%-95% of current US-based adult cardiac surgery hospitals. Since its inception, the primary goal of the STS ACSD has been to use clinical data to track and improve cardiac surgical outcomes. Patients' preoperative risk characteristics, procedure-related processes of care, and clinical outcomes data have been captured and analyzed, with timely risk-adjusted feedback reports to participating providers. In 2006, STS initiated an external audit process to evaluate STS ACSD completeness and accuracy. Given the extremely high inter-rater reliability and completeness rates of STS ACSD, it is widely regarded as the "gold standard" for benchmarking cardiac surgery risk-adjusted outcomes. Over time, STS ACSD has expanded its quality horizons beyond the traditional focus on isolated, risk-adjusted short-term outcomes such as perioperative morbidity and mortality. New quality indicators have evolved including composite measures of key processes of care and outcomes (risk-adjusted morbidity and risk-adjusted mortality), longer-term outcomes, and readmissions. Resource use and patient-reported outcomes would be added in the future. These additional metrics provide a more comprehensive perspective on quality as well as additional end points. Widespread acceptance and use of STS ACSD has led to a cultural transformation within cardiac surgery by providing nationally benchmarked data for internal quality assessment, aiding data-driven quality improvement activities, serving as the basis for a voluntary public reporting program, advancing cardiac surgery care through STS ACSD-based research, and facilitating data-driven informed consent dialogues and alternative treatment-related discussions.

Resident versus attending surgeon graft patency and clinical outcomes in on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy exists regarding ideal approaches in teaching residents complex and/or new surgical techniques in part because consequences on patient outcomes are largely unknown. This study compared patient outcomes for cases in which residents (rather than attending surgeons) performed most of the distal anastomoses as primary surgeons, during on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: This preapproved substudy of the Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial compared clinical outcomes and 1-year graft patency for cases in which residents versus attending surgeons were the primary operator. Comparisons were made between on-pump and off-pump techniques. RESULTS: From July 2003 through May 2007, a total of 1272 ROOBY nonemergent CABG patients were randomized at 16 Veterans Affairs centers where residents were active participants. Residents were the primary surgeon (ie, performed ≥50% of the distal anastomoses) more frequently in on-pump (77.9%) than in off-pump (67.4%) cases. Between these 2 techniques, no differences were found [corrected] in baseline patient characteristics; short-term and 1-year morbidity and mortality rates were no different for residents versus attendings in CABG cases. FitzGibbon A graft patency rates were similar for resident versus attendings completed distal anastomoses for on-pump (83.0% vs 82.4%) compared with off-pump (77.2% vs 76.6%) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In the ROOBY trial, short-term and 1-year patient outcomes and graft patency rates did not differ between resident and attending surgeons, demonstrating that with appropriate patient selection and resident supervision, residents can perform advanced, novel surgical techniques with outcomes similar to those of attending surgeons.

Comparing off-pump and on-pump clinical outcomes and costs for diabetic cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have documented an off-pump over on-pump advantage for high-risk patients, including diabetic patients. Randomized trials have not confirmed this advantage. The VA Randomization On Versus Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial randomly assigned 2,203 coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients at 18 sites to either on-pump (n=1,099) or off-pump (n=1,104) procedures. An a priori ROOBY aim was to evaluate treatment impact on diabetic patients. METHODS: Actively treated diabetic patients (n=835, receiving oral hypoglycemic or insulin medications) received off-pump CABG (n=402) or on-pump CABG (n=433). The primary ROOBY trial endpoints were a short-term composite (30-day operative death or major complications) and a 1-year composite (death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization). Secondary ROOBY endpoints included 1-year all-cause death, 1-year graft patency, 1-year changes from baseline in neurocognitive status and health-related quality of life, and costs. RESULTS: Diabetic patients' risk factors at baseline were balanced across treatments. For diabetic patients, the primary short-term composite outcome rate showed a worse trend for off-pump (8.0%) than on-pump (3.9%, p=0.013), with no difference in the 1-year primary composite outcome or 1-year death rate. One-year patency was 83.1% off-pump versus 88.4% on-pump (p=0.004). No differences were found in neurocognitive, health-related quality of life, discharge cost, and 1-year cumulative cost. CONCLUSIONS: Concordant with the ROOBY trial's overall findings, off-pump CABG yielded no advantage over on-pump CABG for actively treated diabetic patients. The 1-year graft patency was lower and the short-term composite trended higher for off-pump CABG, with no other significant outcome or cost differences.

Examining the time course of attention in a soccer kick using a dual task paradigm.

A dual-task paradigm was implemented using a repeated measures design to determine the time course of attention demands during performance of a soccer penalty kick. Experienced soccer players (N=15) were asked to perform a 12-yard soccer-style penalty kick. As part of the dual task paradigm, participants were instructed to respond to an audible cue that was administered during one of three probe positions (PP) during the penalty kick. Probe position 1 (PP1) was operationalized as the participant's second to last step (taken with the non-kicking foot), probe position 2 (PP2) was the next to last step (taken with the kicking foot), and probe position 3 (PP3) was the last step (taken with the non-kicking, or "plant foot") just prior to the kicking foot making contact with the ball. Kicks were taken with both the dominant foot (DF) and the non-dominant foot (NDF). It was hypothesized that reaction time to the audible cue (RT) would be slowest at the beginning and end of the performance of the motor skill in both the DF and NDF situations and that RT would be slower when kicking with the NDF, but that the kicking foot would not affect the pattern of attentional demands. Results indicated that RT was slowest at PP1 for both the DF and the NDF and that RT was significantly slower at PP1 for the DF than for the NDF. This suggests that soccer players engage in more complex planning during the preparatory phases when executing a kick with their dominant foot. Future research should be designed to further our understanding of foot dominance with regard to kicking and to explore attentional demands of striking tasks.