The everolimus eluting Synergy MegatronTM drug-eluting stent platform: Early outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters' Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Synergy MegatronTM is an everolimus-drug eluting stent that may offer advantages in the treatment of aorto-ostial disease and large proximal vessels. AIMS: To report the short- to medium-term clinical outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters' Registry. METHODS: This registry was an investigator-initiated study conducted at 14 European centers. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularisation. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-five patients underwent PCI with MegatronTM between 2019 and 2021. Patients were 69 ± 12 years old, 26% had diabetes mellitus, 24% had moderate-severe left ventricular impairment and 59% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. 15% were deemed prohibitively high risk for surgical revascularisation. The target vessel involved the left main stem in 55%, the ostium of the RCA in 13% and was a true bifurcation (Medina 1,1,1) in 50%.  At 1 year, TLF was observed in 40 patients, with 26 (65%) occurring within the first 30 days. The cumulative incidence of TLF was 4.5% at 30 days and 8.6% (95% CI 6.3-11.7) at 1 year. The incidence of stent thrombosis was 0.5% with no late stent thromboses. By multivariate analysis, the strongest independent predictors of TLF were severe left ventricular impairment (HR 3.43, 95% CI: 1.67-6.76, p < 0.001) and a target vessel involving the left main (HR 4.00 95% CI 1.81-10.15 p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Synergy MegatronTM everolimus eluting stent in a 'real-world' setting shows favorable outcomes at 30 days and 1 year.

Longitudinal comparisons of mental health, burnout and well-being in patient-facing, non-patient-facing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the CoPE-HCP study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic may disproportionately affect the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs), especially patient-facing HCPs. AIMS: To longitudinally examine mental health in HCPs versus non-HCPs, and patient-facing HCPs versus non-patient-facing HCPs. METHOD: Online surveys were distributed to a cohort at three phases (baseline, July to September 2020; phase 2, 6 weeks post-baseline; phase 3, 4 months post-baseline). Each survey contained validated assessments for depression, anxiety, insomnia, burnout and well-being. For each outcome, we conducted mixed-effects logistic regression models (adjusted for a priori confounders) comparing the risk in different groups at each phase. RESULTS: A total of 1574 HCPs and 147 non-HCPs completed the baseline survey. Although there were generally higher rates of various probable mental health issues among HCPs versus non-HCPs at each phase, there was no significant difference, except that HCPs had 2.5-fold increased risk of burnout at phase 2 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.15-5.46, P = 0.021), which increased at phase 3 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 3.32, 95% CI 1.40-7.87, P = 0.006; depersonalisation: odds ratio 3.29, 95% CI 1.12-9.71, P = 0.031). At baseline, patient-facing HCPs (versus non-patient-facing HCPs) had a five-fold increased risk of depersonalisation (odds ratio 5.02, 95% CI 1.65-15.26, P = 0.004), with no significant difference in the risk for other outcomes. The difference in depersonalisation reduced over time, but patient-facing HCPs still had a 2.7-fold increased risk of emotional exhaustion (odds ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.28-5.85, P = 0.009) by phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the mental health and well-being of both HCPs and non-HCPs, but there is disproportionately higher burnout among HCPs, particularly patient-facing HCPs.

Tandem clerking: maximising workplace learning.

BACKGROUND: Medical assessment units (MAUs) are a valuable source of educational opportunities, but these are often not realised because of service pressures. We trialled a method of collaborative working, where junior and senior trainees work in 'tandem' to see new admissions. The roles are alternated throughout the shift with the aim of encouraging shared decisions, learning and feedback. METHODS: A 4-month trial of tandem clerking was implemented. An anonymous questionnaire of junior doctors collected quantitative and qualitative data to assess educational aspects of tandem clerking in the MAU of a busy district general hospital. RESULTS: Junior doctors (n = 14) report seeing a larger number and wider variety of patients using tandem clerking, with more useful feedback and a greater chance of meeting learning objectives and completing assessments. Some respondents expressed concern over a lack of autonomy. Respondents stated they were less likely to spend time completing mundane and non-educational tasks. Eight respondents preferred the new system, four favoured the traditional system and two had no preference. DISCUSSION: Tandem clerking is an innovative method to increase the educational aspects of the assessment unit, both in terms of feedback opportunities and exposure to a wider variety of patients. The technique is partly dependent on the enthusiasm and interest of both parties.