| 1. |
- Carrero, Juan Jesus, et al.
(författare)
-
Warfarin, Kidney Dysfunction, and Outcomes Following Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 311:9, s. 919-928
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE Conflicting evidence exists regarding the association between warfarin treatment, death, and ischemic stroke incidence in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE To study outcomes associated with warfarin treatment in relation to kidney function among patients with established cardiovascular disease and atrial fibrillation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Observational, prospective, multicenter cohort study from the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry (2003-2010), which includes all Swedish hospitals that provide care for acute cardiac diseases. Participants included consecutive survivors of an acute myocardial infarction (MI) with atrial fibrillation and known serum creatinine (N = 24 317), including 21.8% who were prescribed warfarin at discharge. Chronic kidney disease stages were classified according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES (1) Composite end point analysis of death, readmission due to MI, or ischemic stroke; (2) bleeding (composite of readmission due to hemorrhagic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, bleeding causing anemia, and others); or (3) the aggregate of these 2 outcomes within 1 year from discharge date. RESULTS A total of 5292 patients (21.8%) were treated with warfarin at discharge, and 51.7% had manifest CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [eGFR(<60)]). Compared with no warfarin use, warfarin was associated with a lower risk of the first composite outcome (n = 9002 events) in each CKD stratum for event rates per 100 person-years: eGFR(>60) event rate, 28.0 for warfarin vs 36.1 for no warfarin; adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.81); eGFR(>30-60): event rate, 48.5 for warfarin vs 63.8 for no warfarin; HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.80); eGFR(>15-30): event rate, 84.3 for warfarin vs 110.1 for no warfarin; HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70-1.02); eGFR(<= 15): event rate, 83.2 for warfarin vs 128.3 for no warfarin; HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.37-0.86). The risk of bleeding (n = 1202 events) was not significantly higher in patients treated with warfarin in any CKD stratum for event rates per 100 person-years: eGFR(>60) event rate, 5.0 for warfarin vs 4.8 for no warfarin; HR, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.86-1.41); eGFR(>30-60) event rate, 6.8 forwarfarin vs 6.3 for no warfarin; HR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.81-1.33); eGFR(>15-30) event rate, 9.3 forwarfarin vs 10.4 for nowarfarin; HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.48-1.39); eGFR(<= 15) event rate, 9.1 forwarfarin vs 13.5 for nowarfarin; HR, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.16-1.65). Warfarin use in each CKD stratum was associated with lower hazards of the aggregate outcome (n = 9592 events) for event rates per 100 person-years: eGFR(>60) event rate, 32.1 for warfarin vs 40.0 for no warfarin; HR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.84); eGFR(>30-60) event rate, 53.6 forwarfarin vs 69.0 for nowarfarin; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.82); eGFR(>15-30) event rate, 90.2 forwarfarin vs 117.7 for nowarfarin; HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68-0.99); eGFR(<= 15) event rate, 86.2 forwarfarin vs 138.2 for nowarfarin; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.83). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Warfarin treatment was associated with a lower 1-year risk for the composite outcome of death, MI, and ischemic stroke without a higher risk of bleeding in consecutive acute MI patients with atrial fibrillation. This association was not related to the severity of concurrent CKD.
|
|
| 2. |
- Edelbring, Samuel, 1969-, et al.
(författare)
-
Integrating virtual patients into courses: follow-up seminars and perceived benefit
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Medical Education. - : Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Inc.. - 0308-0110 .- 1365-2923. ; 46:4, s. 417-425
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The use of virtual patients (VPs) suggests promising effects on student learning. However, currently empirical data on how best to use VPs in practice are scarce. More knowledge is needed regarding aspects of integrating VPs into a course, of which student acceptance is one key issue. Several authors call for looking beyond technology to see VPs in relation to the course context. The follow-up seminar is proposed as an important aspect of integration that warrants investigation.Methods: A cross-sectional explanatory study was performed in a clinical clerkship introduction course at four teaching hospitals affiliated to the same medical faculty. The VP-related activities were planned collaboratively by teachers from all four settings. However, each setting employed a different strategy to follow up the activity in the course. Sixteen questionnaire items were grouped into three scales pertaining to: perceived benefit of VPs; wish for more guidance on using VPs, and wish for assessment and feedback on VPs. Scale scores were compared across the four settings, which were ranked according to the level of intensity of students processing of cases during VP follow- up activities.Results: The perceived benefit of VPs and their usage were higher in the two intense-use settings compared with the moderate-and lowintensity settings. The wish for more guidance was high in the low-and one of the highintensity settings. Students in all settings displayed little interest in more assessment and feedback regarding VPs.Conclusions: High case processing intensity was related to positive perceptions of the benefit of VPs. However, the low interest in more assessment and feedback on the use of VPs indicates the need to clearly communicate the added value of the follow-up seminar. The findings suggest that a more intense follow-up pays off in terms of the benefit perceived by students. This study illustrates the need to consider VPs from the perspective of a holistic course design and not as isolated add‐ons.
|
|
