Early Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Uncomplicated Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection: An Aorta Team Approach.

BACKGROUND: Although uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) is traditionally treated with optimal medical therapy (OMT) as per guidelines, recent studies, performed primarily in interventional radiology or surgical operating rooms, suggest superiority of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) over OMT due to recent advancements in endovascular technologies. We report a large, single-center, case control study of TEVAR versus OMT in this population, undertaken solely in a cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) with a cardiologist and surgeon. We aimed to determine if TEVAR for uTBAD results in better outcomes compared with OMT. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of all patients with uTBAD during the last 13 years, with 46 cases (TEVAR group) and 56 controls (OMT group). RESULTS: In the TEVAR group, the procedure duration of 2.5 hours resulted in 100% procedural success for stent placement, with 63% undergoing protective left subclavian artery bypass, 0% mortality or stroke, and a lower readmission rate (1 vs. 2%; p = 0.04 in early TEVAR cases), but a longer length of stay (12.9 vs. 8.5 days: p = 0.006). The risk of all-cause long-term mortality was markedly reduced in the TEVAR group (RR = 0.38; p = 0.01), irrespective of early (<14 days) versus late intervention. On follow-up computed tomography imaging, the false lumen stabilized or decreased in 85% of cases, irrespective of intervention timing. CONCLUSION: TEVAR performed solely in the CCL is safe and effective, with lower all-cause mortality than OMT. These data, in collaboration with previous data on TEVAR in different settings, call for consideration of an update of practice guidelines.

Preliminary Evidence Supporting a Novel 10-Item Clinical Learning Environment Quick Survey (CLEQS).

BACKGROUND: The clinical learning environment (CLE) is a priority focus in medical education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Clinical Learning Environment Review's (CLER) recent addition of teaming and health care systems obligates educators to monitor these areas. Tools to evaluate the CLE would ideally be: (1) appropriate for all health care team members on a specific unit/project; (2) informed by contemporary learning environment frameworks; and (3) feasible/quick to complete. No existing CLE evaluation tool meets these criteria. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the creation and preliminary validity evidence for a Clinical Learning Environment Quick Survey (CLEQS). METHODS: Survey items were identified from the literature and other data sources, sorted into 1 of 4 learning environment domains (personal, social, organizational, material) and reviewed by multiple stakeholders and experts. Leaders from 6 interprofessional graduate medical education quality improvement/patient safety teams distributed this voluntary survey to their clinical team members (November 2019-mid-January 2021) using electronic or paper formats. Validity evidence for this instrument was based on the content, response process, internal structure, reliability, relations to other variables, and consequences. RESULTS: Two hundred one CLEQS responses were obtained, taking 1.5 minutes on average to complete with good reliability (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.83). The Cronbach alpha for each CE domain with the overall item ranged from 0.50 for personal to 0.79 for social. There were strong associations with other measures and clarity about improvement targets. CONCLUSIONS: CLEQS meets the 3 criteria for evaluating CLEs. Reliability data supports its internal consistency, and initial validity evidence is promising.