Advanced practice nurse intervention versus usual care for hypertension control: study protocol for an open-label randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the most frequent chronic pathology in France and in the world. It is one of the main modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. In France, 50% of treated hypertensives are uncontrolled and only 30% of treated patients are fully adherent to their antihypertensive treatment. Poor adherence to drug treatments is considered as one of the main causes of non-control of hypertension. Since 2018, a new profession has entered the French healthcare system: advanced practice nurses (APN). They have many broad-based skills, at the interface of nursing and medical exercises. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of an APN intervention versus usual care on hypertension control. METHODS: The study will take place at the Hôtel-Dieu University Hospital, Paris, France, as prospective, open-label, controlled, randomized 1-to-1, monocentric, and superiority trial. The participants will be recruited during day hospitalization for cardiovascular assessment in the context of their hypertension management. Patients will be divided into two groups: a "usual care" group which will continue traditional follow-up (day hospitalization followed by consultation with a medical doctor (MD) within approximately 2-12 months) and an "intervention" group which will meet an APN between the day hospitalization and the MD consultation. Participants will be monitored until 12 months after the day hospitalization, depending on their last follow-up study appointment (MD consultation). The primary outcome is the rate of controlled BP (BP < 140/90 mmHg in office BP measurement) in each group. The hypothesis formulated is that an individual APN intervention, included in usual hypertension management, improves hypertension control. DISCUSSION: This innovative study will be the first in France where APNs are beginning to be established in the healthcare system. It will provide an objective look at this new profession and the impact it can have in the framework of global management of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0448249. Registered on June 24, 2020.

Effectiveness of Simulation-Based Training on Transesophageal Echocardiography Learning: The SIMULATOR Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence is scarce on the effectiveness of simulation-based training in transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Objective: To assess the effectiveness of simulation-based teaching vs traditional teaching of TEE knowledge and skills of cardiology fellows. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between November 2020 and November 2021, all consecutive cardiology fellows inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers were randomized (1:1; n = 324) into 2 groups with or without simulation support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests 3 months after the training. TEE duration and the fellows' self-assessment of their proficiency were also assessed. Results: While the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the 2 groups (324 participants; 62.6% male; mean age, 26.4 years) before the training (33.0 [SD, 16.3] points vs 32.5 [SD, 18.5] points; P = .80 and 44.2 [SD, 25.5] points vs 46.1 [SD, 26.1] points; P = .51, respectively), the fellows in the simulation group (n = 162; 50%) displayed higher theoretical test and practical test scores after the training than those in the traditional group (n = 162; 50%) (47.2% [SD, 15.6%] vs 38.3% [SD, 19.8%]; P < .001 and 74.5% [SD, 17.7%] vs 59.0% [SD, 25.1%]; P < .001, respectively). Subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was even greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship (ie, 2 years or less of training) (theoretical test: an increase of 11.9 points; 95% CI, 7.2-16.7 vs an increase of 4.25 points; 95% CI, -1.05 to 9.5; P = .03; practical test: an increase of 24.9 points; 95% CI, 18.5-31.0 vs an increase of 10.1 points; 95% CI, 3.9-16.0; P < .001). After the training, the duration to perform a complete TEE was significantly lower in the simulation group than in the traditional group ( 8.3 [SD, 1.4] minutes vs 9.4 [SD, 1.2] minutes; P < .001, respectively). Additionally, fellows in the simulation group felt more ready and more confident about performing a TEE alone after the training (mean score, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.9-3.2 vs mean score, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9; P < .001 and mean score, 3.3; 95% CI, 3.1-3.5 vs mean score, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.6; P < .001, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Simulation-based teaching of TEE showed a significant improvement in the knowledge, skills, and self-assessment of proficiency of cardiology fellows, as well as a reduction in the amount of time needed to complete the examination. These results should encourage further investigation of clinical performance and patient benefits of TEE simulation training.

Rational and Design of the SIMULATOR Study: A Multicentre Randomized Study to Assess the Impact of SIMULation-bAsed Training on Transoesophageal echocardiOgraphy leaRning for Cardiology Residents.

Introduction: Simulation-based training in transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) seems promising. However, data are limited to non-randomized or single-center studies. To assess the impact of simulation-based vs. traditional teaching on TEE knowledge and performance for medical residents in cardiology. Materials and Methods: Nationwide prospective randomized multicenter study involving 43 centers throughout France allowing for the inclusion of >70% of all French cardiology residents. All cardiology residents naive from TEE will be included. Randomization with stratification by center will allocate residents to either a control group receiving theoretical knowledge by e-learning only, or to an intervention group receiving two simulation-based training sessions on a TEE simulator in addition. Results: All residents will undergo both a theoretical test (0-100 points) and a practical test on a TEE simulator (0-100 points) before and 3 months after the training. Satisfaction will be assessed by a 5-points Likert scale. The primary outcomes will be to compare the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests between the two groups, 3 months after the completion of the training. Conclusion: Data regarding simulation-based learning in TEE are limited to non-randomized or single-center studies. The randomized multicenter SIMULATOR study will assess the impact of simulation-based vs. traditional teaching on TEE knowledge and performance for medical residents in cardiology, and whether such an educational program should be proposed in first line for TEE teaching.