Non-superiority of lumen-apposing metal stents over plastic stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis in a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Although lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON), their advantage over plastic stents is unclear. We compared efficacy of LAMS and plastic stents for WON drainage. DESIGN: Patients with WON were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage using LAMS or plastic stents. Primary outcome was comparing total number of procedures to achieve treatment success defined as symptom relief in conjunction with WON resolution on CT at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were treatment success, procedure duration, clinical/stent-related adverse events, readmissions, length of hospital stay (LOS) and costs. RESULTS: 60 patients underwent LAMS (n=31) or plastic stent (n=29) placement. There was no significant difference in total number of procedures performed (median 2 (range 2-7) LAMS vs 3 (range 2-7) plastic, p=0.192), treatment success, clinical adverse events, readmissions, LOS and overall treatment costs between cohorts. Although procedure duration was shorter (15 vs 40 min, p<0.001), stent-related adverse events (32.3% vs 6.9%, p=0.01) and procedure costs (US$12 155 vs US$6609, p<0.001) were higher with LAMS. Significant stent-related adverse events were observed ≥3 weeks postintervention in LAMS cohort. Interim audit resulted in protocol amendment where CT scan was obtained at 3 weeks postintervention followed by LAMS removal if WON had resolved. After protocol amendment, there was no significant difference in adverse events between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Except for procedure duration, there was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between LAMS and plastic stents. To minimise adverse events with LAMS, patients should undergo follow-up imaging and stent removal at 3 weeks if WON has resolved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02685865.

Self-Efficacy Levels Regarding Interprofessional Learning Skills Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: Self-efficacy is an important factor in determining the ability of students to execute tasks or skills needed in the implementation of interprofessional learning (IPL). This study aimed to identify levels of self-efficacy with regards to IPL skills among undergraduate healthcare students and to investigate differences according to gender, programme of study and year of study. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between January and March 2018 at the International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, Malaysia. The Self-Efficacy for Interprofessional Experiential Learning scale was used to evaluate the self-efficacy of 336 students from five faculties including nursing, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and allied health sciences. RESULTS: Significant differences in self-efficacy scores for the interprofessional interaction subscale were identified according to programme of study, with pharmacy students scoring significantly lower than allied health students (mean score: 54.1 ± 10.4 versus 57.4 ± 10.1; P = 0.014). In addition, there was a significant difference in self-efficacy scores for the interprofessional interaction subscale according to year of study, with first-year students scoring significantly lower compared to fifth-year students (mean score: 52.8 ± 10.4 versus 59.9 ± 11.9; P = 0.018). No statistically significant differences in self-efficacy scores were identified with regards to gender or for the interprofessional team evaluation and feedback subscale. CONCLUSION: These findings may contribute to the effective implementation of IPL education in healthcare faculties. Acknowledging the influence of self-efficacy on the execution of IPL skills is crucial to ensure healthcare students are able to adequately prepare for future interprofessional collaboration in real clinical settings.