In-Hospital influenza vaccination to prevent cardiorespiratory events in the first 45 days after acute coronary syndrome: A prespecified analysis of the VIP-ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination prevents major cardiovascular events in individuals presenting a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), however the early effect of an in-hospital double-dose vaccination strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: The VIP-ACS was a randomized, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label trial with a blinded-adjudication endpoint. Patients with ACS ≤ 7 days of hospitalization were randomized to an in-hospital double-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (double-dose) or a standard-dose influenza vaccine at 30 days post-randomization. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory infections, analyzed with the win ratio (WR) method in short-term follow-up (45-days after randomization). RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1,801 patients (≥18 years old). Median participant age was 57 years, 70 % were male. There were no significant differences between groups on the primary hierarchical endpoint: there were 5.7 % wins in the double-dose in-hospital group and 5.5 % wins in the standard-dose delayed vaccination group (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.70---1.53; P = 0.85). In a sensitivity analysis including COVID-19 infection in the hospitalizations for respiratory infections endpoint, overall results were maintained (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI 0.71---1.51; P = 0.87). Results were consistent for major cardiovascular events only (WR: 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.48---1.39; P = 0.46). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with recent ACS, in-hospital double-dose influenza vaccination did not significantly reduce cardiorespiratory events at 45 days compared with standard-dose vaccination at 30 days post-randomization.

Influenza vaccination strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the VIP-ACS trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75-1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504.

Flipped classroom for learning clinical examination / A sala de aula invertida na aprendizagem do exame clínico

Abstract: Introduction: Flipped Classroom (FC) is an Active Learning Methodology characterized by the sending of teaching materials to students in advance, so that the classroom moment is entirely dedicated to non-expository activities. The FC was implemented in 2019 for the teaching of Clinical Examination (CE) aimed at undergraduate medical students at a Higher Education Institution in the Northeast region of Brazil. Objective: To analyze the implementation of FC for CE learning compared to the mini-exposure methodology followed by practice. Method: Analysis of educational intervention with historical control over the implementation of the FC methodology carried out in three phases. In the first, the two tutors involved in the implementation or who acted as teachers were evaluated through a semi-structured interview about the FC implementation process and its initial operation. The second consisted in the assessment of 44 medical students, through a Likert questionnaire, on learning with the new methodology. The third consisted in evaluating the grades obtained by 66 students who experienced learning with FC in relation to 142 students who experienced the previous methodology. Result: The evaluated tutors knew little about the methodology before it was implemented and believe that its implementation promoted gains, such as students' greater dedication to individual study. The initial difficulty arose from the creation of an extensive database of questions for the pre-test, which was carried out at the beginning of the in-person moments. The evaluated students reported being well adapted and agree with the benefits of FC, including: feeling stimulated to study, developing the practice more easily and the presence of pre-tests that help to improve individual study. The results of the comparison of grades showed a significant increase in performance when comparing students who experienced the FC (9,11 - SD 0,45) with those who experienced the previous methodology (8,49 - SD 0,91). Conclusion: The methodology was satisfactorily implemented, promoted gains in learning and optimized the in-person time to be entirely dedicated to practical learning.

Resumo: Introdução: A sala de aula invertida (SAI) é uma metodologia ativa de aprendizagem caracterizada pelo envio antecipado de materiais didáticos aos estudantes, de modo que o momento sala de aula seja inteiramente dedicado a atividades não expositivas. A SAI foi implementada em 2019 para aprendizagem do exame clínico (EC) de alunos da graduação de Medicina em uma instituição de ensino superior da Região Nordeste do Brasil. Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivo analisar a implantação da SAI na aprendizagem do EC comparando com a metodologia de miniexposição seguida de prática. Método: Trata-se de análise de intervenção educacional com controle histórico sobre a implantação da metodologia da SAI realizada em três fases. Na primeira, os dois tutores envolvidos na implantação ou que atuaram como docentes foram avaliados por meio de entrevista semiestruturada sobre o processo de implantação da SAI e seu funcionamento inicial. A segunda fase foi a avaliação de 44 estudantes de Medicina, por meio de questionário Likert, sobre a aprendizagem com a nova metodologia. A terceira consistiu na avaliação das notas obtidas por 66 estudantes que vivenciaram o aprendizado com SAI em relação aos 142 discentes que vivenciaram a metodologia anterior. Resultado: Os tutores avaliados conheciam pouco sobre a metodologia antes da implantação e acreditam que sua implantação promoveu ganhos, como uma maior dedicação dos estudantes ao estudo individual. A dificuldade inicial decorreu da elaboração de um extenso banco de questões para o pré-teste que era realizado no início dos momentos presenciais. Os estudantes avaliados relataram que estavam bem adaptados e que concordavam com os benefícios da SAI, como: sentir-se estimulado a estudar, desenvolver a prática com mais facilidade e a presença dos pré-testes que ajudam a aprimorar o estudo individual. Os resultados da comparação das notas mostraram um aumento significativo no desempenho ao compararem os estudantes que vivenciaram a SAI (9,11 - DP 0,45) com os que vivenciaram a metodologia anterior (8,49 - DP 0,91). Conclusão: A metodologia foi implantada de maneira satisfatória, promoveu ganhos na aprendizagem e otimizou o momento presencial para ser totalmente dedicado à aprendizagem prática.

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter: rationale and design of the RIVER trial

Background The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter remain uncertain. Design RIVER was an academic-led, multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome adjudication that enrolled 1005 patients from 49 sites in Brazil. Patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter were randomly assigned (1:1) to rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg in those with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-30.); the follow-up period was 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite outcome, bleeding events, and venous thromboembolism. Summary RIVER represents the largest trial specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The results of this trial can inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter: Rationale and design of the RIVER trial.

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter remain uncertain. DESIGN: RIVER was an academic-led, multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome adjudication that enrolled 1005 patients from 49 sites in Brazil. Patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter were randomly assigned (1:1) to rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg in those with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-30.); the follow-up period was 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite outcome, bleeding events, and venous thromboembolism. SUMMARY: RIVER represents the largest trial specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The results of this trial can inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and a Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.

BACKGROUND: The effects of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we compared rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. The primary outcome was a composite of death, major cardiovascular events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, or hospitalization for heart failure), or major bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1005 patients were enrolled at 49 sites in Brazil. A primary-outcome event occurred at a mean of 347.5 days in the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean survival time, 7.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 16.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or thromboembolic events occurred in 17 patients (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20). The incidence of stroke was 0.6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35). The frequency of other serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary outcome of death, major cardiovascular events, or major bleeding at 12 months. (Funded by PROADI-SUS and Bayer; RIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02303795.).

Rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve

BACKGROUND The effects of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain. METHODS In this randomized trial, we compared rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. The primary outcome was a composite of death, major cardiovascular events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, or hospitalization for heart failure), or major bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS A total of 1005 patients were enrolled at 49 sites in Brazil. A primary-outcome event occurred at a mean of 347.5 days in the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean survival time, 7.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.4 to 16.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or thromboembolic events occurred in 17 patients (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20). The incidence of stroke was 0.6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35). The frequency of other serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary outcome of death, major cardiovascular events, or major bleeding at 12 months.