Left ventricular assist device implantation and concomitant mitral valve surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The management of concomitant valvular lesions in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a topic of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the existing evidence on postoperative outcomes following LVAD implantation, with and without concomitant MV surgery. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines, of original articles comparing LVAD alone to LVAD plus concomitant MV surgery up to February 2023. The primary outcomes assessed were overall mortality and early mortality, while secondary outcomes included stroke, need for right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation, postoperative mitral valve regurgitation, major bleeding, and renal dysfunction. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 10 studies comprising 32 184 patients. It revealed that concomitant MV surgery during LVAD implantation did not significantly affect overall mortality (OR:0.83; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.29; p = 0.40), early mortality (OR:1.17; 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.17; p = 0.63), stroke, need for RVAD implantation, postoperative mitral valve regurgitation, major bleeding, or renal dysfunction. These findings suggest that concomitant MV surgery appears not to confer additional benefits in terms of these clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, concomitant MV surgery during LVAD implantation does not appear to have a significant impact on postoperative outcomes. However, decision-making regarding MV surgery should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors and characteristics. Further research with prospective studies focusing on specific patient populations and newer LVAD devices is warranted to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice in the management of valvular lesions in LVAD recipients.

Determining the distance patterns in the movements of future doctors in UK between 2002 and 2015: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and identify distance patterns in the movements of medical students and junior doctors between their training locations. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of UK medical students from 2002 to 2015 (UKMED data). SETTING: All UK medical schools, foundations and specialty training organisation. PARTICIPANTS: All UK medical students from 2002 to 2015, for a total of 97 932 participants. OUTCOME MEASURES: Individual movements and number of movements by county of students from family home to medical school training, from medical school to foundation training and from foundation to specialty training. METHODS: Leslie matrix, principal components analysis, Gini coefficient, χ2 test, generalised linear models and variable selection methods were employed to explore the different facets of students' and junior doctors' movements from the family home to medical school and for the full pathway (from family home to specialty training). RESULTS: The majority of the movements between the different stages of the full pathway were restricted to a distance of up to 50 km; although the proportion of movements changed from year-to-year, with longer movements during 2007-2008. At the individual level, ethnicity, socioeconomic class of the parent(s) and the deprivation score of the family home region were found to be the most important factors associated with the length of the movements from the family home to medical school. Similar results were found when movements were aggregated at the county level, with the addition of factors such as gender and qualification at entry (to medical school) being statistically associated with the number of new entrant students moving between counties. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that while future doctors do not move far from their family home or training location, this pattern is not homogeneous over time. Distances are influenced by demographics, socioeconomic status and deprivation. These results may contribute in designing interventions aimed at solving the chronic problems of maldistribution and underdoctoring in the UK.