Patient Characteristics and Preferences Regarding Anticoagulant Treatment in Venous Thromboembolic Disease.

Background: Anticoagulants are the recommended treatment for venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). The mode of anticoagulant administration may influence compliance, and therefore the effectiveness of the treatment. Unlike in atrial fibrillation or cancer-associated thrombosis, there is only limited data on patient preferences regarding the choice of anticoagulation in VTE. This study aims to evaluate patient preferences regarding anticoagulants in terms of administration: types (oral or injectable treatment) and number of doses or injections per day. Patients and Methods: This is a national survey through a questionnaire sent by e-mail to 1936 French vascular physicians between February and April 2019. They recorded the responses for each patient admitted for VTE. Results: Three hundred and eleven (response rate of 16%) of the 1936 contacted physicians responded for 364 patients. Among these, there were 167 fully completed questionnaires. Most patients (63%) express concerns about VTE and prefer oral treatment (81.5%), justified by the ease of administration (74%) and a fear of the injections (22%). When patients were taking more than three oral treatments they statistically chose injectable treatment more often (54%) than oral treatment (25%, p = 0.002). Patients who chose injectable treatment were also older (70 ± 16 vs. 58 ± 17 years old, p = 0.001). There was no statistically difference in anticoagulation preference according to gender or to the expected duration of treatment (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months or unlimited). When oral treatment was preferred (81%), most chose oral treatment without dose adjustment and biomonitoring (74.3%). Among them, very few (5.8%) preferred a twice-daily intake. Conclusion: Patient preference in terms of anticoagulant treatment in VTE disease is in favor of oral treatment without adjustment or biomonitoring and with once-daily intake. When an injectable treatment is chosen, a prolonged duration of treatment does not seem to be a constraint for the patient. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier [NCT03889457].

Proficiency of Medical Students at Obtaining Pressure Measurement Readings Using Automated Ankle and Toe Measuring Devices for Diagnosis of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Pressure measurement is a key component in the diagnosis of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) but is technically challenging and time-consuming for nonvascular specialists, thus hindering its wider implementation. The aim of this study was to assess the proficiency of students at obtaining satisfactory ankle or toe pressure readings for PAD diagnosis using 2 automated devices. METHODS: Medical students followed a training session after which they performed ankle and toe pressure measurements to calculate the ankle-brachial index (ABI) using the MESI ABPI MD® device, and the toe-brachial index (TBI) using the SYSTOE® device. Blinded vascular specialists took the same measurements. Use of the automated devices was considered satisfactory when a valid reading was measured in as few attempts as possible. A comparison was made of each student's proficiency at performing valid ankle and toe pressure measurements. The secondary objective was to compare the readings taken by the vascular specialists with those of the students. RESULTS: Forty-three medical students were included. Mean number of attempts was 1.23 ± 0.48 with the MESI ABPI MD device and 1.44 ± 0.55 with the SYSTOE device (P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between ABI readings taken by the students and those taken by the vascular specialists, 1.17 (0.90; 1.39) vs. 1.18 (0.86; 1.39) (P = 0.33), contrary to TBI readings 0.70 (0.22; 1.74) vs. 0.72 (0.23; 1.16) (P = 0.03). Measurement duration for the students and vascular specialists was 3.75 min ± 1.12 min and 2.26 min ± 0.82 min (P < 0.01) with the MESI ABPI MD device and 4.30 min ± 1.23 min and 3.33 min ± 1.49 min (P = 0.03) with the SYSTOE device. Correlation coefficients between the students and the vascular specialists were 0.56 and 0.34 with the MESI ABPI MD and SYSTOE devices (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After a brief theoretical training session, the medical students were better at taking ankle pressure measurements than toe pressure measurements with an automated device for the purposes of PAD diagnosis. It would be of value to assess the advantages of these automated devices in primary care practice in future research.

Impact of an Educational Intervention on Ankle-Brachial Index Performance Among Medical Students and Fidelity Assessment at Six Months.

BACKGROUND: The resting ankle-brachial index (ABI) is a clinical test to diagnose peripheral artery disease. The Wyatt's score has been proposed to assess the students' performance on ABI measurement on a healthy volunteer (HV). No study has shown that this score is sensitive to different teaching methods. In this randomized controlled trial, we wanted to determine whether didactic learning alone or didactic learning combined with experiential learning improves proficiency in the ABI procedure assessed by the Wyatt's score. METHODS: Medical students (n = 30) received a didactic learning, including (1) a presentation of the ABI guidelines and (2) a video demonstration. Each student was then randomized into 2 groups ("the no experiential learning group" and "the experiential learning group"). An initial evaluation was performed after the didactic learning and then the final evaluation at the end of the intervention. A student was considered to be proficient when he performed a correct ABI procedure on an HV. The correct procedure corresponds to the following: (1) correctly answered Wyatt's score and (2) a difference in the ABI measurement between a professor in vascular medicine and a student was ≤0.15. RESULTS: No student was proficient at the initial evaluation. At the final evaluation, there was a significant difference between the number of proficient students for the Wyatt's score depending on their learning group [didactic alone (1/10) or didactic + experiential training (15/20)] and also for the ABI procedure [didactic alone (0/10) or didactic + experiential training (16/20)]. At 6 months, among the 12 students who passed the final evaluation, 4 students passed both the Wyatt's score and the ABI measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the Wyatt's score was sensitive to an educational intervention and no improvement was found in the case of "no experiential learning." The Wyatt's score could be used to evaluate the student on ABI measurement after an educational intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Vascular Medicine Department of Rennes University Hospital (France). This was approved by the ethics review board of our institution (no. 16.150).

How to become proficient in performance of the resting ankle-brachial index: Results of the first randomized controlled trial.

The resting ankle-brachial index (ABI) is a first-line test to diagnose peripheral artery disease (PAD). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has yet been conducted to determine the best teaching method to become proficient in the ABI procedure. We conducted a monocentric RCT to determine whether didactic learning alone or didactic learning combined with experiential learning improved proficiency in the ABI procedure. Medical students ( n = 30) received didactic learning, including (i) a presentation of the ABI guidelines and (ii) a video demonstration. Each student was then randomized into two groups ('no experiential learning group' and 'experiential learning group'). An initial evaluation was performed after the didactic learning and a final evaluation at the end of the intervention. A student was considered to be proficient when he or she performed a correct ABI procedure on a healthy individual and a patient. The correct procedure corresponds to (i) following guidelines and (ii) a difference in ABI measurement between a vascular specialist and a student of ≤ 0.15. No student was proficient at the initial evaluation. At the final evaluation, in the didactic learning group, the number of proficient students was not improved compared with the initial evaluation (0/10 vs 1/10). In the experiential learning group, the number of proficient students was significantly improved (0/20 vs 11/20; p < 0.05). At the final evaluation, there was a significant difference between the number of proficient students depending on their learning group. In conclusion, didactic learning alone is insufficient to gain proficiency in the ABI procedure. Combining didactic learning with experiential learning significantly improved the students' proficiency.