Assessment of Didactic Transesophageal Echocardiography Education During Anesthesia Residency.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography can be a useful monitor during noncardiac surgery, in patients with comorbidities and/or undergoing procedures associated with substantial hemodynamic changes. The goal of this study was to investigate if transesophageal-echocardiography-related knowledge could be acquired during anesthesia residency. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a prospective observational study was performed in two anesthesiology residency programs. After a 41-week didactic transesophageal-echocardiography-education curriculum residents' exam scores were compared to baseline. The educators' examination was validated against the National Board of Echocardiography's Examination of Special Competence in Advanced Perioperative Transesophageal Echocardiography. RESULTS: After the 41-week course, clinical anesthesia (CA)-3 exam scores increased 12% compared to baseline (P = .03), CA-2 scores increased 29% (P = .007), and CA-1 scores increased 25% (P = .002). Pearson correlation coefficient between the educators' exam score and the special competence exam percentile rank was 0.69 (P = .006). Pearson correlation coefficient between the educators' exam score and the special competence exam scaled score was 0.71 (P = .0045). CONCLUSIONS: The 41-week course resulted in significant increases in exam scores in all 3 CA-classes. While didactic knowledge can be learned by anesthesiology residents during training, it requires significant time and effort. It is important to educate residents in echocardiography, to prepare them for board examinations and to care for the increasingly older and sicker patient population. Further work needs to be done to determine optimal methods to provide such education.

A comparison of plaintiff and defense expert witness qualifications in malpractice litigation in anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: Expert witnesses serve a crucial role in the medicolegal system, interpreting evidence so that it can be understood by jurors. Guidelines have been established by both the legal community and professional medical societies detailing the expectations of expert witnesses. The primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate the expertise of anesthesiologists testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation. METHODS: The WestlawNext legal database was searched for cases over the last 5 years in which anesthesiologists served as expert witnesses. Internet searches were used to identify how long each witness had been in practice. Departmental websites, the Scopus database, and state medical licensing boards were used to measure scholarly impact (via the h-index) and determine whether the witness was a full-time faculty member in academia. RESULTS: Anesthesiologists testifying in 295 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (mean ± SEM, defense, 33.4 ± 0.7, plaintiff, 33.1 ± 0.6, P = 0.76). Individual scholarly impact, as measured by h-index, was found to be lower among plaintiff experts (mean ± SEM, 4.8 ± 0.5) than their defendant counterparts (mean ± SEM, 8.1 ± 0.8; P = 0.02). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (65.7% vs 54.8%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists testifying for both sides are very experienced. Defense expert witnesses are more likely to have a higher scholarly impact and to practice in an academic setting. This indicates that defense expert witnesses may have greater expertise than plaintiff expert witnesses.

Stem cell delivery of therapies for brain disorders.

The blood brain barrier (BBB) poses a problem to deliver drugs for brain malignancies and neurodegenerative disorders. Stem cells such as neural stem cells (NSCs) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can be used to delivery drugs or RNA to the brain. This use of methods to bypass the hurdles of delivering drugs across the BBB is particularly important for diseases with poor prognosis such as glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Stem cell treatment to deliver drugs to neural tumors is currently in clinical trial. This method, albeit in the early phase, could be an advantage because stem cells can cross the BBB into the brain. MSCs are particularly interesting because to date, the experimental and clinical evidence showed 'no alarm signal' with regards to safety. Additionally, MSCs do not form tumors as other more primitive stem cells such as embryonic stem cells. More importantly, MSCs showed pathotropism by migrating to sites of tissue insult. Due to the ability of MSCs to be transplanted across allogeneic barrier, drug-engineered MSCs can be available as off-the-shelf cells for rapid transplantation. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of stem cells to deliver prodrugs, genes and RNA to treat neural disorders.