Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death worldwide. Emerging evidence suggests common mechanisms between cancer and cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis. With advances in cancer therapies, screening, and diagnostics, cancer-specific survival and outcomes have improved. This increase in survival has led to the coincidence of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis, as patients with cancer live longer. Additionally, cancer and cardiovascular disease share several risk factors and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, including inflammation, cancer-related factors including treatment effects, and alterations in platelet function. Patients with cancer are at increased risk for bleeding and thrombosis compared with the general population. Although optimal antithrombotic therapy, including agent choice and duration, has been extensively studied in the general population, this area remains understudied in patients with cancer despite their altered thrombotic and bleeding risk. Future investigation, including incorporation of cancer-specific characteristics to traditional thrombotic and bleeding risk scores, clinical trials in the cancer population, and the development of novel antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory strategies on the basis of shared pathophysiologic mechanisms, is warranted to improve outcomes in this patient population.
This article highlights the timely situation that resident physicians, faculty, and staff are facing after the recent highly publicized murders of Black Americans and its impact on our healthcare communities. We discuss our experiences of how the hospital can serve as a meeting place for anti-racism, as well as how anti-racist events at the hospital can raise public consciousness and be catalysts for creating a more inclusive, diverse, and welcoming environment for all members of hospital communities.
In an effort to reduce concussions in football, a helmet safety-rating system was developed in 2011 that rated helmets based on their ability to reduce g-forces experienced by the head across a range of impact forces measured on the playing field. Although this was considered a major step in making the game safer, the National Football League (NFL) continues to allow players the right to choose what helmet to wear during play. This prompted us to ask: What helmets do NFL players wear and does this helmet policy make the game safer? Accordingly, we identified the helmets worn by nearly 1000 players on Week 13 of the 2015-2016 season and Week 1 of the 2016-2017 season. Using stop-motion footage, we found that players wore a wide range of helmets with varying safety ratings influenced in part by the player's position and age. Moreover, players wearing lower safety-rated helmets were more likely to receive a concussion than those wearing higher safety-rated helmets. Interestingly, many players suffering a concussion in 2015 did not switch to a higher safety-rated helmet in 2016. Using a helmet-to-helmet impactor, we found that the g-forces experienced in the highest safety-rated helmets were roughly 30% less than that for the lowest safety-rated helmets. These results suggest that the current NFL helmet policy puts players at increased risk of receiving a concussion as many players are wearing low safety-rated helmets, which transmits more energy to the brain than higher safety-rated helmets, following collision. Thus, to reduce concussions, the NFL should mandate that players only wear helmets that receive the highest safety rating.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.