Search

There is no recent comprehensive overview of contemporary clinical trials assessing short and long-term outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This paper reviews factors from recent clinical trials that influenced prognosis in patients with ACS. Cochrane and PubMed databases were screened systematically for clinical trials published in the English literature reporting on ACS prognosis. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text. Studies meeting inclusion criteria evaluated the impact of modern practice on prognosis. In vitro and animal models studies, conference abstracts, imaging studies, and review articles were excluded. Disagreement in inclusion criteria was resolved by consensus. A large study of 8,859 patients showed no difference in all-cause mortality between 31 days and 2 years in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to those with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Other studies showed a significant increase in all-cause mortality in patients with STEMI within the first 30 days, with NSTEMI patients exhibiting a higher mortality rate compared to those with SIHD during the 2-year follow-up period. Our review found that women have a poorer short-term prognosis compared to men. Additionally, reports from patients receiving comprehensive and coordinated care showed longer survival rates. In view of the improved prognosis demonstrated for patients suffering from ACS, assessing prognosis in patients represents a formidable task in modern practice. Our review highlights the need for further evidence-based studies evaluating long-term outcomes on diagnostic and treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine if an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) could be used to evaluate and monitor hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) proficiency for medical interns in the United States., Methods: Interns in July 2015 (N=123, Cohort 1) without OSCE-based contact precaution evaluation and teaching were evaluated early 2016 by OSCE for hand hygiene and PPE proficiency. They performed poorly. Therefore, the new interns entering July 2016 (N=151, Cohort 2) were immediately tested in the same OSCE station as Cohort 1 and provided feedback and teaching. Cohort 2 was then retested in the OSCE station early 2017. The Mann Whitney U test was used to compare Cohort 1 vs. Cohort 2 performances on checklist items. Cohort 2 performance differences at the beginning and end of the intern year were compared using McNemar's X2 test for paired nominal data., Results: Checklist items were scored, summed and reported as percent correct. In Cohort 2, the mean percent correct was higher in posttest than pretest, 92% vs. 77% )(P <0 .0001). The passing rate (100% correct) was significantly higher, 55% vs. 16%. Comparing Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 at the end of intern year, the mean percent correct was higher for Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 1, 95% vs 90% (P < 0.0001). 55% of the Cohort 2 passed (a perfect score) compared to 24% in Cohort 1 (P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: An OSCE can be utilized to evaluate and monitor hand hygiene and PPE proficiency for interns in the United States.