Effects of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression on Leg Vascular Function in People with Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Study.

Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether 60 mins of intermittent pneumatic compression therapy (IPC) could acutely increase leg blood flow-induced shear stress and enhance vascular endothelial function in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Design: Pretest with multiple posttests, within subject randomized control design. Setting: University of Southern Mississippi, Spinal Cord Injury Research Program within the School of Kinesiology, recruiting from the local community in Hattiesburg, Jackson, and Gulfport, MS. Participants: Eight adults with SCI (injury level: T3 and below; ASIA class A-C; age: 41±17 yrs). Interventions: A 60-min IPC session was performed in one leg (experimental leg; EXP), with the other leg serving as a control (CON). Outcomes Measures: Posterior-tibial artery shear rate (Doppler-ultrasound) was examined at rest, and at 15 and 45 mins during IPC. Endothelial function was assessed using the flow-mediated dilation (FMD) technique, before and after IPC. Results: Resting FMD (mm) was similar between legs at rest. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA (leg x time) revealed that during IPC, peak shear rate increased in the EXP leg (215±137 to 285±164 s-1 at 15 mins; +39±29%, P = 0.03), with no change occurring in the CON. In addition, FMD significantly increased in the EXP leg (Pre IPC: 0.36±0.14 vs. Post IPC: 0.47±0.17 mm; P = 0.011, d = 0.66), with no change occurring in the CON leg. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggests that IPC therapy may acutely increase leg shear stress within 15 mins, with a resultant moderate-large improvement in vascular endothelial function after 60 mins in people with SCI.

Influence of aerobic fitness on vasoreactivity in young men.

Previous work has demonstrated a direct relationship between aerobic fitness and vasodilatory function (i.e., flow-mediated dilation; FMD); however, the relation between aerobic fitness and vasoconstrictor responsiveness (i.e., low flow-mediated constriction; L-FMC), and the overall vasoactive range (FMD + L-FMC) is unclear. PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that L-FMC and the overall vasoactive range (FMD + L-FMC) will be related to aerobic fitness in young, healthy men. METHODS: Twenty men (age: 23 ± 5 years) were recruited, and divided evenly into a higher (HF) vs. lower (LF) aerobic fitness group, quantified via YMCA cycle ergometry (VO2 peak extrapolation), and a 3-min step test (1-min heart rate recovery). Duplex Doppler-ultrasound was used to assess brachial artery FMD and L-FMC. RESULTS: Estimated VO2 peak (HF = 55 ± 10 vs. LF = 38 ± 5 mL/kg/min) and heart rate recovery (HF = 36 ± 10 vs. LF = 25 ± 8 beats) were greater in the HF group (P < 0.05). FMD and the vasoactive range were similar between groups; however, L-FMC was significantly greater in HF (HF = -2.5 ± 1.6 vs. LF = -0.7 ± 1.8%, P < 0.05; d = 1.18). A correlational analysis revealed an inverse relationship between L-FMC and both HR recovery (r = -0.665, P < 0.01) and estimated VO2 peak (r = -0.5, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This work supports an association between L-FMC and aerobic fitness in young, healthy men. Longitudinal or interventional studies are warranted to support causality, and to distinguish whether L-FMC is more sensitive to changes in aerobic fitness than FMD.

Developed-developing country partnerships: benefits to developed countries?

Developing countries can generate effective solutions for today's global health challenges. This paper reviews relevant literature to construct the case for international cooperation, and in particular, developed-developing country partnerships. Standard database and web-based searches were conducted for publications in English between 1990 and 2010. Studies containing full or partial data relating to international cooperation between developed and developing countries were retained for further analysis. Of 227 articles retained through initial screening, 65 were included in the final analysis. The results were two-fold: some articles pointed to intangible benefits accrued by developed country partners, but the majority of information pointed to developing country innovations that can potentially inform health systems in developed countries. This information spanned all six WHO health system components. Ten key health areas where developed countries have the most to learn from the developing world were identified and include, rural health service delivery; skills substitution; decentralisation of management; creative problem-solving; education in communicable disease control; innovation in mobile phone use; low technology simulation training; local product manufacture; health financing; and social entrepreneurship. While there are no guarantees that innovations from developing country experiences can effectively transfer to developed countries, combined developed-developing country learning processes can potentially generate effective solutions for global health systems. However, the global pool of knowledge in this area is virgin and further work needs to be undertaken to advance understanding of health innovation diffusion. Even more urgently, a standardized method for reporting partnership benefits is needed--this is perhaps the single most immediate need in planning for, and realizing, the full potential of international cooperation between developed and developing countries.

Beyond the initial indicators: lessons from the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project and the US National Healthcare Quality Report.

UNLABELLED: Interest in comparative quality measurement and evaluation has grown considerably over the past two decades because of factors such as the recognition of widespread variation in clinical practice, the increased availability of evidence about medical effectiveness, and increasing concern about the cost and quality of health care. This article describes and contrasts two current efforts to develop health performance reporting systems: one, an international initiative-the Health Care Quality Indicator (HCQI) Project, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); and the other, a national project-the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR), sponsored by the US Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. There are a number of lessons learned from a comparison of the two efforts that are relevant for the future of each project and for other indicator-based reporting efforts in quality of health care. These lessons are discussed in the article and include: Conceptual frameworks should be established to guide the selection of indicators. Choices should be made early on in the process to focus on a wide range of clinical conditions or to report on a few priority areas. METHODS: should be developed to add and subtract indicators while maintaining a stable set of indicators to track over time. Resources should be allocated to communication strategies and how best to present data results to diverse audiences. Mechanisms should be put in place to maintain project momentum.