Cognitive Development and Decision Making in Basketball: A Comparison between Male Players with and without Intellectual Impairment and across Different Age-Groups.

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of age and intellectual impairment (II) in decision-making in basketball. The current study investigated differences in decision making between equally well-trained adult basketball male players with intellectual impairment (players with II) (n = 93), adults without II (senior) (n = 44) and youth basketball players (under-14, n = 31; under-16, n = 25; under-18, n = 30). A computer test was developed composed by 20 photographs displaying various basketball game-situations, and participants had to decide as fast as possible what the player in ball possession should do: dribble, pass or shoot. Decision time and accuracy were recorded for every situation. Players with II had slower decision time (3.8 ± 1.8 s vs. 1.5 ± 0.5 s, p < 0.001) and less decision-making accuracy (15.7 ± 2.8 correct decisions vs. 17.9 ± 1.2 correct decisions, p < 0.001) compared to senior players without II. Discriminant analysis with speed and accuracy as independent variables classified 91.2% (CCA = 0.769) of the players correctly into their group: players with II or players without II. A Spearman correlation revealed that age correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the number of correct decisions (rs = 0.269) and mean decision time (rs = -0.331). Our findings support that decision making in basketball develops with age and experience, but is significantly deteriorated in experienced adult players who have II. Decision-making should be considered as an important eligibility criterion to participate in competitive basketball events for male players with II.

Outcomes of the Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stent in Complex Coronary Lesions: A PIONEER III Substudy.

Background: The Supreme healing-targeted drug-eluting stent (DES) is designed to promote endothelial healing to reduce stent-related adverse events. This may be particularly relevant among complex lesions that have a higher rate of adverse events. We sought to compare 1-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in complex lesions between the Supreme DES and contemporary durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). Methods: PIONEER III was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind clinical trial, randomizing 1629 patients with either an acute or chronic coronary syndrome in a 2:1 ratio to the Supreme DES or DP-EES. Complex lesions (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type B2/C) were found in 1137 patients. Outcomes were also compared for specific parameters of lesion complexity: severe calcification, long length (>20 â€‹mm), and severe tortuosity. The primary end point was target lesion failure at 1 â€‹year. Results: At 1 â€‹year, there was no difference in target lesion failure between the Supreme DES and DP-EES: (5.7% vs 5.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.68, P = .99). Similarly, there were no differences in the secondary end points of lesion success (99.7% vs 99.4%, P = .41), device success (97.0% vs 98.5%, P = .14), target vessel failure (6.5% vs 7.4%, P = .50), major adverse cardiac events (7.8% vs 8.5%, P = .64), or stent thrombosis (0.7% vs 1.1%, P = .48). A trend was observed toward a higher rate of target lesion revascularization with the Supreme DES (2.5% vs 0.9%, P = .06). Conclusions: This study suggests that the Supreme DES is as effective and safe at 1 â€‹year compared with the standard DP-EES across a broad spectrum of lesion complexity.