Subject(s)
Illicit Drugs , Substance-Related Disorders , Humans , Young Adult , Pilot Projects , EthanolABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Impact of low energy asymmetric spacings vs. high energy symmetric spacings on the immediate/early (postoperative day 1 (POD1)) outcomes of SmartSight lenticule extraction for myopic astigmatism with a new femtosecond laser system. METHODS: The first 112 eyes of 56 patients consecutively treated using low energy asymmetric spacings (Group A; Study group) were compared at POD1 to the last 112 eyes of 56 patients consecutively treated using high energy symmetric spacings (Group S; Controls). Mean age of the patients was 28 ± 5 years with a mean spherical equivalent of -4.41 ± 1.76 diopters (D) and a mean magnitude of refractive astigmatism of 0.89 ± 0.82 D. RESULTS: Laser Energy was -25 ± 1nJ lower for asymmetric treatments (p < .0001); Spot and Track distances were + 0.7 ± 0.1 µm larger and -0.8 ± 0.1 µm tighter for asymmetric treatments, respectively (p < .0001 for both). At POD1, astigmatism was -0.08 ± 0.02D lower for asymmetric treatments (p < .0003); uncorrected and corrected visual acuities (UDVA and CDVA, respectively) were -0.03 ± 0.01logMAR better for asymmetric treatments (p < .0007); differences between postop UDVA and preop CDVA along with change in CDVA were + 0.3 ± 0.1lines better for asymmetric treatments (p < .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Lenticule extraction treatment using SmartSight is safe and efficacious already at POD1. Findings suggest that low energy asymmetric spacings may further improve the immediate and short-term outcomes of SmartSight lenticule extraction in the treatment of myopic astigmatism compared to conventional settings (high energy symmetric spacings).
Subject(s)
Astigmatism , Corneal Surgery, Laser , Myopia , Humans , Young Adult , Adult , Astigmatism/surgery , Visual Acuity , Retrospective Studies , Myopia/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Microsurgery , Lasers, Excimer/therapeutic use , Refraction, Ocular , Cornea/surgery , Corneal Stroma/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) resulting in progressively wider indications, adverse periprocedural outcomes still raise concern. Real-world outcome data are thus of primary importance to evaluate the procedural risk-benefit trade-off in the continuously changing populations undergoing TAVR. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 1348 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was a composite of procedural mortality and need for conversion to emergent surgery, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Temporal trends in baseline characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. The independent outcomes predictors were assessed through multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 56 (4.1%) patients experienced the primary endpoint. 47 (3.5%) patients died during hospital stay, 19 (1.4%) within 72â¯h from the procedure. 17 patients (1.2%) needed an emergent conversion to open surgery, of whom 7 (41.2%) did not survive. Significant temporal trends of increasing mean age (from 79.4⯱â¯7.4 to 81⯱â¯7.5, pâ¯=â¯0.007) and decreasing surgical risk (mean STS: from 9⯱â¯9.5 to 7.1⯱â¯9.8, pâ¯=â¯0.010) were observed. When dichotomized at the median procedural date (year 2014), a significant reduction in the occurrence of the primary endpoint in more recent years was observed (3.0% vs 5.2%, pâ¯=â¯0.041). This was the single primary endpoint independent predictor at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The high-volume 10-year experience in TAVR procedures at our center shows encouraging trends in procedural mortality reduction, which anyhow still occurs at a non-negligible rate, calling for further research to detect and to blunt the determinant of early procedural events.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis/mortality , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Hospitals, High-Volume/trends , Intraoperative Complications/mortality , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/mortality , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/trends , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnosis , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Intraoperative Complications/diagnosis , Male , Mortality/trends , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The purpose of this methodological study was to examine the contribution of treatment allocation method (random vs. preference) on the immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes of a behavioural intervention (MCI) for insomnia. Participants were allocated to the MCI randomly or by preference. Outcomes were assessed before, during, and after completion of the MCI using validated self-report measures. Analysis of covariance was used to compare the post-test outcomes for the 2 groups, controlling for baseline differences. Compared to those randomized, participants in the preference group showed improvement in most immediate outcomes (sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency), both intermediate outcomes (insomnia severity and daytime fatigue), and one ultimate outcome (resolution of insomnia). Using a systematic method for eliciting participants' preferences and involving participants in treatment selection had a beneficial impact on immediate and intermediate outcomes. Additional research should validate the mechanism through which treatment preferences contribute to outcomes.
La présente étude méthodologique vise à analyser l'incidence de la méthode d'attribution des traitements (aléatoire ou fondée sur les préférences) sur les résultats immédiats, intermédiaires et ultimes d'une intervention comportementale (MCI) destinée à traiter l'insomnie. Les participants se sont vu attribuer une MCI selon une méthode aléatoire ou fondée sur les préférences. Les résultats ont été analysés avant, pendant et après la fin de la thérapie à l'aide d'un instrument d'autoévaluation validé. Une analyse de la covariance a servi à comparer les résultats au post-test des deux groupes en tenant compte des différences de départ. La comparaison montre une amélioration chez les sujets du groupe avec attribution fondée sur les préférences en ce qui concerne la plupart des résultats immédiats (latence du sommeil, temps d'éveil après l'endormissement, efficacité du sommeil), les deux résultats intermédiaires (gravité de l'insomnie, fatigue diurne) et un résultat ultime (résolution des problèmes d'insomnie). Le fait d'avoir recouru à une méthode systématique pour amener les sujets à exprimer leurs préférences et à les faire participer au choix du traitement a eu un effet bénéfique sur les résultats immédiats et intermédiaires. D'autres recherches devraient permettre de valider le mécanisme par lequel les préférences en matière de traitement contribuent aux résultats.