Measuring the Efficacy of Pathology Career Recruitment Strategies in US Medical Students.

CONTEXT.­: Multiple articles and surveys in the literature suggest that medical students find a career in pathology undesirable and believe it is disproportionately focused primarily on the autopsy. OBJECTIVE.­: To measure the effect of applied interventions on medical student attitudes about the field of pathology. DESIGN.­: This prospective study involving medical students from first through fourth year was conducted as a pilot study in 2 medical schools in the United States. A 2-part anonymous survey regarding interest in pathology as a career and familiarity with the specialty using a 10-point scale was given to first- and second-year medical students before and after they listened to a 10-minute pathology career presentation. The same survey was given to third- and fourth-year medical students before and after a 4-week pathology elective. RESULTS.­: A total of 121 and 83 students responded to the survey before and after the intervention, respectively. Of the 121 students who responded to the survey before the intervention, 106 (87.6%) had not spent significant time in a pathology laboratory before the intervention. The majority of responses in interest in career, job responsibilities, and features of pathologists before and after the intervention demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P < .001). We compared survey scores of presentation versus 4-week rotation groups before and after the intervention. Students who experienced the presentation did not differ from students who experienced the rotation in the majority of questions related to interest in career, job responsibilities, and features of pathologists. CONCLUSIONS.­: Our study suggests that pathology exposure strategies can have a beneficial effect on student perceptions of the field and consideration of a career in pathology. Overall, the presentation intervention seemed to have the greatest effect on the first- and second-year students.

A randomized pilot trial for aggressive therapeutic approaches in aspirin-resistant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: There is great variability among individual patients in platelet inhibition after aspirin intake. Aspirin resistance has been associated with a higher incidence of ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal antiplatelet therapy in aspirin-resistant patients undergoing PCI is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aggressive antiplatelet therapy would reduce ischemic events in aspirin-resistant patients after PCI. METHODS: A total of 330 patients undergoing PCI (with bivalirudin) were screened for aspirin responsiveness. The resulting 36 aspirin-resistant patients were randomized into two arms: 1) conventional strategy patients received 325 mg aspirin orally and a loading dose of 600 mg clopidogrel at the time of the procedure; and 2) aggressive strategy patients received similar amounts of aspirin and clopidogrel, with the addition of an intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor bolus intraprocedurally. The primary outcome was an elevation of cardiac enzymes within 24 hours post procedure. The secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and urgent revascularization, and bleeding up to 30 days. RESULTS: Primary outcome occurred in 22% of the conventional strategy group and 11% of the aggressive strategy group (p = 0.36). The secondary outcome was reached in 27.8% of the conventional group and 5.5% of the aggressive strategy group (p = 0.17), which is suggestive of a statistical trend toward more ischemic events with conventional therapy. Importantly, there were 2 cases of definite stent thrombosis in the conventional strategy group. CONCLUSION: In aspirin-resistant patients, aggressive antiplatelet therapy tended to show better outcomes after PCI, without an increase in bleeding. These findings need validation in a large, randomized study.

Changing outcomes and treatment strategies for wire induced coronary perforations in the era of bivalirudin use.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to analyze the clinical outcomes and treatment strategies of coronary wire perforations (WPs) in the era of heparin use compared to the era of bivalirudin use. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) advances have led to progressive decrease in complications. Therefore, complex coronary lesions such as chronic total occlusions and calcified lesions are being attempted with stiff/hydrophilic wires with resultant higher incidence of coronary WP. METHODS: A single-center retrospective data analysis of coronary perforation (CP) for the last 4 years with review of coronary angiograms was done and WPs were identified. A simple classification scheme based on angiographic appearance of CP was made: Type I ("myocardial stain," with no frank dye extravasation) and type II ("myocardial fan," with dye extravasation to pericardial cavity or cardiac chambers). RESULTS: Overall incidence of CP was 0.49% (82/16,859). Of these 50 (61%) were caused by WP; 30 occurred with heparin use (Group A) and 20 with bivalirudin use (Group B). WPs always occurred in type B2/C lesions (100%) and commonly with use of hydrophilic guidewires (70%). Major adverse cardiac events and cardiac tamponade were frequent in group A (50%) and none in group B (0%); P < 0.01. All WP in group B responded to stopping anticoagulation and prolonged balloon inflation, while group A type II perforations frequently required additional interventions (pericardiocentesis, coil embolization). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac tamponade and major adverse cardiac events from WPs were less frequent with bivalirudin use compared to heparin use. This beneficial effect of bivalirudin may be explained on the basis of its short half-life and reversible thrombin inhibition property. Therefore, bivalirudin may offer a safer alternative for anticoagulation in complex PCI.

Bolus-only versus bolus + infusion of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: The present study was done to analyze if glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) bolus-only will reduce vascular/bleeding complications and cost with similar major adverse cardiac events (MACE) when compared with GPI bolus + infusion. Evidence-based therapy of GPI inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) incorporates intravenous bolus followed by 12 to 18 hours of infusion. However, GPI bolus + infusion may increase vascular/bleeding complications and may not reduce MACE when compared with GPI bolus-only. METHODS: From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004, 2,629 consecutive patients received GPI during PCI at a single center. Of these, 1,064 patients received GPI bolus + infusion in 2003 and were compared with 1,565 patients that received GPI bolus-only in 2004. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. RESULTS: Patients receiving GPI bolus-only had reduced vascular/bleeding complications when compared with bolus + infusion (4.9% vs 7%, P < .05, odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.89). Furthermore, ischemic complications were similar in both groups, including periprocedural creatine kinase-MB enzyme release (12.8% vs 15.3%, P = NS), MACE at 30 days (3.2% vs 3%, P = NS), and death and myocardial infarction at 1 year (7.1% vs 7.8%, P = NS). In addition, GPI bolus-only reduced cost in US dollars ($323 vs $706, P < .001) and increased ambulatory PCI (13.1% vs 3.2%, P < .01), with reduced length of stay (1.1 vs 1.6 days, P < .01), when compared with GPI bolus + infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Glycoprotein inhibitor bolus-only reduces vascular/bleeding complications with similar MACE and reduced cost when compared with GPI bolus + infusion. In addition, GPI bolus-only improved ambulatory PCI and reduced length of stay. These results are consistent with a safer and cost-effective strategy for bolus-only when GPI therapy is considered during PCI.

Improved outcome with AngioJet thrombectomy during primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction patients with high-grade thrombus.

BACKGROUND: Primary stenting during acute myocardial infarction (MI) is often complicated by slow-flow/no-reflow due to distal embolization of intracoronary thrombus. The AngioJet thrombectomy catheter has been utilized in this setting in order to limit distal embolization and improve flow. The effect of AngioJet during primary stenting in acute MI with high-grade thrombus (greater than or equal to grade 3, as per thrombolysis in MI [TIMI] classification) is not known. METHODS: We analyzed 95 consecutive acute MI patients with thrombus grade > or = 3 who underwent primary stenting with AngioJet (n = 52) and without AngioJet (n = 43) for epicardial and microvascular flow, and followed for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 1-year survival. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital events were obtained from the interventional database. Two independent operators analyzed pre- and post-procedure TIMI flow rates, corrected TIMI frame count (CTFC) and TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG). RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups. AngioJet use was associated with better TIMI flow, TMP grade, CTFC and a trend towards lower 30-day and 1-year MACE. Use of AngioJet thrombectomy prior to stenting of acute MI patients with high-grade thrombus improves epicardial and microvascular flow, with a trend toward better short- and long-term outcome.