In aortic root aneurysms, the challenge of a valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) procedure is to ensure durable aortic valve function without reintervention. Although the Bentall procedure defers the durability of valve function to the prosthesis, short- and long-term complications tend to be higher. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of VSRR and Bentall procedures in patients with aortic root aneurysms. A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed regarding the outcomes of the Bentall procedure compared with those of VSRR from the inception of the 2 procedures until July 2018. Studies with short- and long-term comparative data were included. An initial search yielded 9517 titles. Thirty-four studies were finally included for meta-analysis (all retrospective, non-randomized), comprising 7313 patients (2944 valve-sparing and 4369 Bentall procedures) with no evidence of publication bias. Operative mortality was found to be significantly lower in the VSRR group [odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.70; P < 0.001] despite overall higher cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. The 5-year survival rate was also more favourable in the VSRR group (OR 1.93 95% CI 1.15–3.23; P < 0.05). Significantly lower rates of cerebral thromboembolism (OR 0.668, 95% CI 0.477–0.935; P = 0.019) and heart block (OR 0.386, 95% CI 0.195–0.767; P = 0.007) were also found after VSRR. There was no significant difference in rates of reoperation between the groups at long-term follow-up (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75–2.33; P = 0.336). Meta-regression of patient and operative covariates yielded no influence on the main outcomes (P > 0.05). These findings suggest that VSRR is an appropriate and potentially better treatment option for a root aneurysm when the aortic valve is repairable.

ObjectiveThere is an ongoing challenge of effective integration between primary and social care in the United Kingdom; current systems have led to fragmentation of services preventing holistic patient-centred care for vulnerable populations. To improve clinical outcomes and achieve financial efficiencies, the barriers to integration need to be identified and addressed. This study aims to explore the unique perspectives of frontline staff (general practitioners and practice managers) towards these barriers to integration.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis to obtain results.SettingGeneral practices within London.Participants18 general practitioners (GPs) and 7 practice managers (PMs) based in London with experience of working with social care.ResultsThe study identified three overarching themes where frontline staff believed problems exist: accessing social services, interprofessional relationships and infrastructure. Issues with contacting staff from other sectors creates delays in referrals for patient care and perpetuates existing logistical challenges. Likewise, professionals noted a hostile working culture between sectors that has resulted in silo working mentalities. In addition to staff being overworked as well as often inefficient multidisciplinary team meetings, poor relationships across sectors cause a diffusion of responsibility, impacting the speed with which patient requests are responded to. Furthermore, participants identified that a lack of interoperability between information systems, lack of pooled budgets and misaligned incentives between managerial staff compound the infrastructural divide between both sectors.ConclusionIn this study, primary care staff identify intangible barriers to integration such as poor interprofessional relationships, in addition to more well-described structural issues such as insufficient funding and difficulty accessing social care. Participants believe that educating the next generation of medical professionals may lead to the development of collaborative, instead of siloed, working cultures and that change is needed at both an interpersonal and institutional level to successfully integrate care.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate impact on people with intellectual disability (PwID). PwID are at higher risk of mental illness and receive psychotropic prescribing ‘off licence' also, to manage distress behaviour. The lockdown and reduction of multidisciplinary face-to-face appointments had an impact on care delivery, the recourse possibly being psychotropic prescribing. It is imperative to comprehend the influence the pandemic had on psychotropic prescribing patterns to enable future planning. Aims The aim was to understand the impact of the pandemic by comparing psychotropic prescribing patterns during the England lockdown with the prescribing patterns before lockdown in specialist urban and rural psychiatric services for PwID. Method Data was collected from Cornwall (rural) and London (urban) intellectual disability services in England as a service evaluation project to rationalise psychotropic prescribing. PwID in both services open across January 2020 to January 2021 were included. Baseline patient demographics including age, gender, ethnicity, intellectual disability level and neurodevelopmental and psychological comorbidities were collected. Baseline psychotropic prescribing and subsequent % change for each psychotropic group for the two services was compared using Pearson's chi-square and z-statistic (two tailed) with significance taken at P < 0.05. Results The two centres London (n = 113) and Cornwall (n = 97) were largely comparable but for baseline differences in terms of presence of severe mental illness (37 v. 86, P < 0.001), challenging behaviour (44 v. 57, P < 0.05) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (37 v. 3, P < 0.001). There was an overall increase in psychotropic prescribing during lockdown in urban as compared with rural settings (11% v. 2%). Conclusions The pandemic caused an increase in psychotropic prescribing associated with lockdown severity and urban settings. Team structures could have played a role.

Background The subclavian artery is an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), with a potential advantage in patients unsuitable for traditional access routes such as the femoral artery. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of the trans -subclavian (TSc) compared to the trans -femoral (TF) approach. Methods A systematic review was conducted on two online databases: Embase and Medline. The initial search returned 508 titles. Nine observational studies were included: n = 2938 patients (2382 TF and 556 TSc). Results Both TSc and TF groups were comparable for: 30-day mortality (Odds ratio, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 – 1.16, p = 0.195); in-hospital stroke (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60–1.85, p = 0.859); myocardial infarction (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.74–5.23, p = 0.176); paravalvular leaks (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76–1.90, p = 0.439); rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92–2.41, p = 0.105); in-hospital bleeding and meta -analysis demonstrated no significant difference between access points (OR 3.44, 95% CI 0.35–34.22, p = 0.292). Procedural time was found to be longer in the TSc group (SMD 1.02; 95% CI 0.815–1.219, p < 0.001). Major vascular complications were significantly higher in the TF group (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.94, p = 0.029). Meta regression found no influence of the covariates on the outcomes. Conclusion Subclavian access is both a safe and feasible alternative access route for TAVI with lower risks of major vascular complications. This study supports the use of subclavian access as a viable alternative in patient groups where transfemoral TAVI is contraindicated.

Background: A pilot study to identify if the delivery of teaching session to medical students would have the potential to enhance communication and a culture of integration between primary and social care, ultimately improving interprofessional relationships between primary and social care. Health and social care integration is a topic of great debate in the developed world and the focus of the upcoming Green Paper by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the NHS. There is much uncertainty to how this should be done and is hindered by the various current barriers. The literature identifies that collaborative cultures encourage effective interprofessional relationships and that communication is vital to integration of primary and social care and should be established early in medical training. Materials and Method: The General Medical Council’s Outcomes for Graduates and Imperial College School of Medicine curriculum were reviewed out to identify outcomes relating to inter-professional relationships between primary and social care. The relevant year group was surveyed to identify if the learning objective was delivered. In order to determine if delivery of a teaching session on nurturing interprofessional relationships between primary and social care would be effective, it was delivered to early clinical years to measure benefits as a pilot study. This was devised of case-based scenarios derived from learning objectives developed with experienced health care professionals. A survey was administered before and after the teaching session to determine if the students felt they had improved with respect to the learning objectives. Results: The initial survey identified the majority of students found the learning objectives were not delivered. The teaching session found a statistically significant improvement in confidence to nurture interprofessional relationships between primary and social care. Conclusion: Effective interprofessional relationships between primary and social care, improving communication and collaborative cultures, can be effectively taught in medical school, to improve integration of primary and social care.