Trauma Training Courses and Programs in Low- and Lower Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Injury is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Trauma training is a cost-effective way to improve injury outcomes. Several trauma programs have been implemented in LMICs; however, their scope and effectiveness remain unclear. In this review, we sought to describe and assess the current state of trauma training in LMICs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global for trauma training courses in LMICs. An additional gray literature search was conducted on university, governmental, and non- governmental organizations' websites to identify trauma-related postgraduate medical education (PGME) opportunities. RESULTS: Most studies occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and participants were primarily physicians/surgeons, medical students/residents, and nurses. General and surgical trauma management courses were most common, followed by orthopedic trauma or plastic surgery trauma/burn care courses. 32/45 studies reported on participant knowledge and skills, 27 of which had minimal follow-up. Of the four studies commenting on cost of courses, only one demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Three articles evaluated post-course effects on patient outcomes, two of which failed to demonstrate significant improvements. Overall, 43.0% of LMICs have PGME programs with defined trauma competency requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Current studies on trauma training in LMICs do not clearly demonstrate sustainability, cost-effectiveness, nor improved outcomes. Trauma training programs should be in response to a need, championed locally, and work within a cohesive system to demonstrate concrete benefits. We recommend standardized and contextualized trauma training with recertifications in LMICs for lasting and improved trauma care.

Age, Sex, and Remote Monitoring Differences in Device Acceptance for Patients With Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) acceptance and shock anxiety are issues that clinicians should address to improve quality of life among device recipients. Previous findings have indicated that younger patients experience poorer device adjustment. The purpose of this study was to examine age and ICD-specific quality-of-life outcomes in a large sample of Canadian ICD patients. We tested the hypothesis that patient age is related to device acceptance and shock anxiety in an Alberta (Canada) ICD population. METHODS: The Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) and Florida Shock Acceptance Survey (FSAS) were completed by ICD patients attending the Cardiac Implantable Electrical Device Clinics in Alberta. The population was dichotomized into those aged ≤ 65 years (younger) and those aged > 65 years (older). Sex, ICD shock history, and remote monitoring use were also examined. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 126 younger (53 ± 11 years; 79% male) and 216 older (74 ± 6 years; 85% male) patients. Younger, compared with older, patients had greater device-related distress (P < 0.001) and more body-image concerns (P < 0.001), but no differences in return to function or positive appraisal. Younger patients reported lower total device acceptance (P = 0.001) and greater total shock anxiety (P < 0.001) compared with older patients. CONCLUSIONS: ICD patients aged ≤ 65 years reported poorer device acceptance and greater shock anxiety than older patients. Younger patients may require targeted interventions addressing adjustment to the ICD, and impact of the ICD on body image. Moreover, education about the relatively low probability of shocks may alleviate shock anxiety in younger patients.

CONTEXTE: L'acceptation d'un défibrillateur cardioverteur implantable (DCI) et la crainte des chocs de DCI sont des problèmes auxquels les cliniciens devraient s'attaquer pour améliorer la qualité de vie des patients qui sont porteurs d'un DCI. Selon des observations antérieures, les plus jeunes patients ont davantage de mal à s'adapter au dispositif. L'étude avait pour objet l'examen des paramètres de la qualité de vie particuliers à l'âge et au port d'un DCI dans un vaste échantillon de patients canadiens porteurs de ce dispositif. Nous avons testé l'hypothèse voulant que l'âge du patient soit lié à l'acceptation du dispositif et à la crainte des chocs chez des Albertains porteurs d'un DCI. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les patients des cliniques de l'Alberta (Canada) des dispositifs cardiaques électroniques implantables qui étaient porteurs d'un DCI ont rempli les questionnaires FPAS (Florida Patient Acceptance Survey) et FSAS (Florida Shock Acceptance Survey). Les patients ont été partagés en deux groupes selon leur âge, soit ceux de 65 ans et moins (plus jeunes patients) et ceux de plus de 65 ans (patients âgés). Nous avons aussi examiné les facteurs suivants : sexe, chocs de DCI antérieurs et utilisation d'une télésurveillance. RÉSULTATS: Les questionnaires ont été remplis par 126 plus jeunes patients (53 ± 11 ans; 79 % d'hommes) et 216 patients âgés (74 ± 6 ans; 85 % d'hommes). Chez les plus jeunes patients, par rapport aux patients âgés, la détresse causée par le dispositif était plus grande (p < 0,001) et il y avait davantage de préoccupations liées à l'image corporelle (p < 0001), mais il n'y avait pas de différences pour ce qui est de la reprise des activités ou de l'évaluation positive du dispositif. Chez les plus jeunes patients, l'acceptation totale du dispositif était moindre (p = 0,001) et la crainte des chocs était plus grande (p < 0,001) que chez les patients âgés. CONCLUSIONS: Chez les porteurs d'un DCI de 65 ans et moins, le dispositif était moins bien accepté, et la crainte des chocs était plus grande que chez les patients âgés. Chez les plus jeunes patients, des interventions ciblées axées sur l'adaptation au DCI et les répercussions du DCI sur l'image corporelle pourraient être nécessaires. De plus, l'éducation à propos de la probabilité relativement faible de subir des chocs pourrait réduire cette crainte chez les plus jeunes patients.

Adenosine A1 receptor activation modulates human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) activity via PKC-mediated phosphorylation of serine-281.

Equilibrative nucleoside transporter subtype 1 (ENT1) is critical for the regulation of the biological activities of endogenous nucleosides such as adenosine, and for the cellular uptake of chemotherapeutic nucleoside analogs. Previous studies have implicated protein kinase C (PKC) in the regulation of ENT1 expression/function. It was hypothesized that hENT1 activity at the plasma membrane is regulated by PKC-mediated phosphorylation of Ser281. WT (wild-type)-hENT1 or S281A-hENT1 was stably transfected into a PK15 cell variant that is deficient in nucleoside transport. Using [(3)H]nitrobenzylthioinosine (NBMPR) binding and [(3)H]2-chloroadenosine uptake analyses, it was determined that S281A-hENT1 exhibited functional characteristics similar to WT-hENT1. Direct activation of PKC with PMA or indirect activation with the adenosine A1 receptor agonist 2-chloro-N(6)-cyclopentyladenosine (CCPA) led to significant increases in [(3)H]NBMPR binding and [(3)H]2-chloroadenosine uptake in WT-hENT1 transfected cells. The PKC inhibitor Gö6983 blocked these effects of both PMA and CCPA, and the CCPA-mediated increase was also blocked by the A1 adenosine receptor antagonist DPCPX. In contrast, neither PMA nor CCPA affected [(3)H]NBMPR binding or [(3)H]2-chloroadenosine uptake in cells transfected with S281A-hENT1. shRNAi silencing studies implicated PKCδ in this regulation of hENT1 activity. Immunocytochemical analysis and cell surface biotinylation assays showed that activation of PKC with PMA, but not CCPA, led to a significant increase in the plasma membrane localization of hENT1. These data suggest that phosphorylation of hENT1 by PKC has effects on both the function and subcellular trafficking of hENT1. This signaling pathway represents a feedback loop whereby adenosine receptor signaling can lead to increased adenosine reuptake into cells via hENT1.