DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a randomized trial.
SETTING: Cardiac surgical operating rooms.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective, isolated CABG.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). The primary outcome was hemodynamically relevant MI (MI requiring high-dose inotropic support or prolonged intensive care unit stay) occurring within 48 hours from surgery. The secondary outcome was 1-year death due to cardiac causes.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 5,400 patients were enrolled between April 2014 and September 2017 (2,709 patients randomized to the volatile anesthetics group and 2,691 to TIVA). The mean age was 62 ± 8.4 years, and the median baseline ejection fraction was 57% (50-67), without differences between the 2 groups. Patients in the volatile group had a lower incidence of MI with hemodynamic complications both in the per-protocol (14 of 2,530 [0.6%] v 27 of 2,501 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.038) and as-treated analyses (16 of 2,708 [0.6%] v 29 of 2,617 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.039), but not in the intention-to-treat analysis (17 of 2,663 [0.6%] v 28 of 2,667 [1.0%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.10). Overall, deaths due to cardiac causes were lower in the volatile group (23 of 2,685 [0.9%] v 40 of 2,668 [1.5%] than in the TIVA group; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: An anesthetic regimen, including volatile agents, may be associated with a lower rate of postoperative MI with hemodynamic complication in patients undergoing CABG. Furthermore, it may reduce long-term cardiac mortality.
METHODS: The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2021 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors related to cardiovascular disease.
RESULTS: Each of the 27 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.
CONCLUSIONS: The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.
METHODS: The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2022 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population and an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, and the global burden of cardiovascular disease and healthy life expectancy.
RESULTS: Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.
CONCLUSIONS: The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.
METHODS: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR).
RESULTS: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study.
IMPACT: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes.
METHODS: The observational study (#NCT04367337) enrolled 6064 adults residing in Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Data on handwashing adherence across 8 situations (indicated in the WHO guidelines) were collected via an online survey (March-July 2020). Individual-level handwashing data were matched with the date- and country-specific values of the 6 indices of the trajectory of COVID-19 pandemic, obtained from the WHO daily reports.
RESULTS: Multilevel regression models indicated a negative association between both accumulation of the total cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = -.041, SE = .013, p = .013) and mortality (B = -.036, SE = .014 p = .002) and handwashing. Higher levels of total COVID-related morbidity and mortality were related to lower handwashing adherence. However, increases in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = .014, SE = .007, p = .035) and mortality (B = .022, SE = .009, p = .015) were associated with higher levels of handwashing adherence. Analyses controlled for participants' COVID-19-related situation (their exposure to information about handwashing, being a healthcare professional), sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status), and country-level variables (strictness of containment and health policies, human development index). The models explained 14-20% of the variance in handwashing adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: To better explain levels of protective behaviors such as handwashing, future research should account for indicators of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov, # NCT04367337.
OBJECTIVE: Applying protection motivation theory (PMT), this study explored whether the number of total COVID-19 cases/deaths and general anxiety were associated with cross-situational handwashing adherence and whether these associations were mediated by PMT-specific self-regulatory cognitions (threat appraisal: perceived vulnerability, perceived illness severity; coping appraisal: self-efficacy, response efficacy, response costs).
METHOD: The study (#NCT04367337) was conducted in March-September 2020 among 1256 adults residing in 14 countries. Self-reports on baseline general anxiety levels, handwashing adherence across 12 situations, and PMT-related constructs were collected using an online survey at two points in time, four weeks apart. Values of COVID-19 cases and deaths were retrieved twice for each country (one week prior to the individual data collection).
RESULTS: Across countries and time, levels of adherence to handwashing guidelines were high. Path analysis indicated that smaller numbers of COVID-19 cases/deaths (Time 0; T0) were related to stronger self-efficacy (T1), which in turn was associated with higher handwashing adherence (T3). Lower general anxiety (T1) was related to better adherence (T3), with this effect mediated by higher response efficacy (T1, T3) and lower response cost (T3). However, higher general anxiety (T1) was related to better adherence via higher illness severity (T1, T3). General anxiety was unrelated to COVID-19 indicators.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a complex pattern of associations between the numbers of COVID-19 cases/deaths, general anxiety, PMT variables, and handwashing adherence at the early stages of the pandemic. Higher general anxiety may enable threat appraisal (perceived illness severity), but it may hinder coping appraisal (response efficacy and response costs). The indicators of the trajectory of the pandemic (i.e., the smaller number of COVID-19 cases) may be indirectly associated with higher handwashing adherence via stronger self-efficacy.
METHODS: We used three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (rs8176746, rs505922, and rs8176704) to determine ABO genotype in 2,774 aggressive prostate cancer cases and 4,443 controls from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate age and study-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between blood type, genotype, and risk of aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥8 or locally advanced/metastatic disease (stage T3/T4/N1/M1).
RESULTS: We found no association between ABO blood type and risk of aggressive prostate cancer (Type A: OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.87-1.08; Type B: OR = 0.92, 95%CI =n0.77-1.09; Type AB: OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.98-1.59, compared to Type O, respectively). Similarly, there was no association between "dose" of A or B alleles and aggressive prostate cancer risk.
CONCLUSIONS: ABO blood type was not associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: This study explored whether strictness of containment and health policies was related to handwashing adherence and whether such associations were mediated by HAPA-specified self-regulatory cognitions.
METHODS: The study (NCT04367337) was conducted among 1,256 adults from Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Self-report data on cross-situational handwashing adherence were collected using an online survey at two time points, 4 weeks apart. Values of the index of strictness of containment and health policies, obtained from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker database, were retrieved twice for each country (1 week prior to individual data collection).
RESULTS: Across countries and time, levels of handwashing adherence and strictness of policies were high. Path analysis indicated that stricter containment and health policies were indirectly related to lower handwashing adherence via lower self-efficacy and self-monitoring. Less strict policies were indirectly related to higher handwashing adherence via higher self-efficacy and self-monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: When policies are less strict, exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus might be higher, triggering more self-regulation and, consequently, more handwashing adherence. Very strict policies may need to be accompanied by enhanced information dissemination or psychosocial interventions to ensure appropriate levels of self-regulation.