Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

Carotid clamping time may be a novel risk factor for early restenosis.

Background: Conflicts occur in intensive care units (ICUs), and an international multicentre study conducted in 2008, including 323 ICUs from 24 European countries, confirmed the occurrence of this phenomenon. There are no data in Poland. The aim of the study was to analyse the frequency of the occurrence of conflicts in ICUs in Polish hospitals, and their most frequent sources. Methods: The study was based on an original questionnaire performed in 12 ICUs in the Pomeranian Voivodship. The respondents were asked questions regarding the frequency, type, and lines of conflicts between employees, as well as potential causes of conflicts. Results: Completed surveys were received from 232 employees, including 79 doctors and 153 nurses. The phenomenon of occurrence of conflicts was confirmed by about 30% of the staff, providing answer that conflicts occur "often". About 43% of staff estimated that conflicts "sometimes" occur and 25% chose the answer "rarely". Analysis of the answers made it possible to identify the most common potential causes of conflict. Conclusions: The main sources of conflicts in ICUs appear to be external factors such a financial issues and physical overload. The hospital policy and the health policy of the state are also important. The perceived conflicts require careful and constant monitoring. The frequency of hidden conflicts requires thorough assessment of their impact on the quality of work.

No abstract

No abstract