ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: University teachers, who primarily provide guidance and advice to their students, can play a significant role in educational process transformation. As there is no particular e-learning framework, it is important to understand the factors and variables that may impact both its effective usage and further successful implementation. The current study aims to outline the influence of university faculty, and possible barriers preventing medical students from using apps for learning purposes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Α cross-sectional study was conducted with an online survey questionnaire. The population of the study included 1,458 students from all the seven Greek schools of medicine. RESULTS: University faculty (51.7%), followed by fellow students and friends (55.6%), constitute the second most common source of information on adopting apps for medical education. 45.8% of students rated their educational guidance as insufficient/inadequate, 33.0% as moderate, 18.6% as quite good, and only 2.7% as sufficient/complete. University professors have proposed certain apps to 25.5% of students. PubMed (41.7%), Medscape (20.9%), and Complete Anatomy (12.2%) were the leading suggestions. The main barriers to app usage were the lack of knowledge of apps' benefits (28.8%), insufficient updates of their content (21.9%), their cost-effectiveness (19.2%), and financial reasons (16.2%). Most students preferred using free apps (51.4%) and 76.7% preferred universities to cover apps' expenses. CONCLUSIONS: University faculty represent the main source of information regarding the adaptation of medical apps in the educational process. However, students need improved and enhanced guidance. The main barriers are ignorance about apps and financial reasons. The majority prefer free apps and universities to cover their cost.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical , Students, Medical , Humans , Universities , Motivation , Cross-Sectional Studies , FacultyABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Aged , Polypharmacy , Mastocytosis, Systemic/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/complications , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods , Drug Hypersensitivity/complications , Tryptases/analysis , Premedication/methods , Kounis Syndrome/diagnosisABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Anaphylaxis , Heart Arrest , Shock , Cefuroxime , Skin TestsSubject(s)
Fluoroquinolones , Levofloxacin , Anaphylaxis , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Humans , Incidence , OfloxacinABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Fluoroquinolones , Levofloxacin , Incidence , Ofloxacin , Anaphylaxis , Anti-Bacterial AgentsABSTRACT
Platelet reactivity (PR) and bleeding events following therapy with ticagrelor vs prasugrel have not been adequately studied. We aimed to compare PR and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) while on ticagrelor vs prasugrel for one month. Consecutive patients who were discharged either on ticagrelor 90 mg bid maintenance dose (MD) or prasugrel 10 mg MD were invited for PR assessment (VerifyNow, in PRU) at one month. High PR (HPR) was defined as >208 PRU. Bleeding events [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification] were monitored. Out of 937 screened patients, 512 were analysed, 278 under ticagrelor MD and 234 under prasugrel MD. PR at 30 days (C-statistic of the propensity score model 0.63, 0.58-0.67 95% CI, p<0.001) was lower when on ticagrelor compared with prasugrel (33.3, 95% CI 29.3-37.3 vs 84.6, 95% CI 73.6-95.6, p<0.001). In the analysed population more BARC type 1 bleeding events were observed with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel (36.7% vs 28.2%, p=0.047). In 221 propensity score matched pairs, BARC type 1 bleeding rate was marginally higher in ticagrelor vs prasugrel treated patients (35.7% vs 27.1%, p=0.05). BARC type ≥2 events did not differ between groups 5 (2.3%) vs 5 (2.3%). HPR rate was higher for prasugrel-treated patients (5.4% vs 0%, p<0.001). In conclusion, in patients with ACS undergoing PCI, ticagrelor MD produces a significantly higher platelet inhibition compared to prasugrel MD. This pharmacodynamic difference might be associated with more nuisance bleeding events with ticagrelor use.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/surgery , Adenosine/analogs & derivatives , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Piperazines/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Thiophenes/adverse effects , Adenosine/administration & dosage , Adenosine/adverse effects , Aged , Female , Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Humans , Maintenance Chemotherapy , Male , Middle Aged , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Piperazines/administration & dosage , Platelet Activation/drug effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Platelet Function Tests , Prasugrel Hydrochloride , Thiophenes/administration & dosage , Ticagrelor , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The combination of diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease (CAD) constitutes an aggressive disease characterized biologically by chronic inflammatory, proliferative and pro-thrombotic situation. In the "diabetic patient" the increased frequency and gravity of simultaneous myocardial infarction and the deterioration of congestive heart failure contribute to the inevitable unfavourable final result. Diabetes accelerates the natural course of atherosclerosis and involves a great number of coronary vessels with more diffuse atherosclerotic lesions. Moreover, the risks of plaque ulceration and thrombosis have been shown to be considerably higher in diabetic patients. The treatment should be also aggressive and be based on the combined treatment of CAD and the effective regulation of glucose levels. The decision of revascularization in the diabetic patient should be posed relatively earlier. The surgical choice of revascularization seems to be advantageous over the interventional, with better early and late results.