The objective of this study was to test a new version of the Magnetic Resonance Disease Severity Scale (MRDSS2), incorporating cerebral gray matter (GM) and spinal cord involvement from 3 T MRI, in modeling the relationship between MRI and physical disability or cognitive status in multiple sclerosis (MS). Fifty-five MS patients and 30 normal controls underwent high-resolution 3 T MRI. The patients had an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 1.6±1.7 (mean±SD). The cerebral normalized GM fraction (GMF), the T2 lesion volume (T2LV), and the ratio of T1 hypointense LV to T2LV (T1/T2) were derived from brain images. Upper cervical spinal cord area (UCCA) was obtained from spinal cord images. A within-subject d-score (difference of MS from normal control) for each MRI component was calculated, equally weighted, and summed to form MRDSS2. With regard to the relationship between physical disability and MRDSS2 or its individual components, MRI–Expanded Disability Status Scale correlations were significant for MRDSS2 (r=0.33, P=0.013) and UCCA (r=−0.33, P=0.015), but not for GMF (P=0.198), T2LV (P=0.707), and T1/T2 (P=0.240). The inclusion of UCCA appeared to drive this MRI–disability relationship in MRDSS2. With regard to cognition, MRDSS2 showed a larger effect size (P=0.035) than its individual components [GMF (P=0.081), T2LV (P=0. 179), T1/T2 (P=0.043), and UCCA (P=0.818)] in comparing cognitively impaired with cognitively preserved patients (defined by the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in MS). Both cerebral lesions (T1/T2) and atrophy (GMF) appeared to drive this relationship. We describe a new version of the MRDSS, which has been expanded to include cerebral GM and spinal cord involvement. MRDSS2 has concurrent validity with clinical status.
Valence is a principal dimension by which we understand emotional experiences, but oftentimes events are not easily classified as strictly positive or negative. Inevitably, individuals vary in how they tend to interpret the valence of ambiguous situations. Surprised facial expressions are one example of a well-defined, ambiguous affective event that induces trait-like differences in the propensity to form a positive or negative interpretation. To investigate the nature of this affective bias, we asked participants to organize emotional facial expressions (surprised, happy, sad) into positive/negative categories while recording their hand-movement trajectories en route to each response choice. We found that positivity-negativity bias resulted in differential hand movements for modal versus non-modal response trajectories, such that when an individual categorized a surprised face according to his or her non-modal interpretation (e.g., a negatively biased individual selecting a positive interpretation), the hand showed an enhanced spatial attraction to the alternative, modal response option (e.g., negative) in the opposite corner of the computer screen (Experiment 1). Critically, we also demonstrate that this asymmetry between modal versus non-modal response trajectories is mitigated when the valence interpretations are made under a cognitive load, although the frequency of modal interpretations is unaffected by the load (Experiment 2). These data inform a body of seemingly disparate findings regarding the effect of cognitive effort on affective responses, by showing within a single paradigm that varying cognitive load selectively alters the dynamic motor movements involved in indicating affective interpretations, whereas the interpretations themselves remain consistent across variable cognitive loads.
Background: Hyperglycaemia occurs frequently in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and is associated with poor outcomes, for which continuous insulin infusion therapy (CIIT) may be beneficial. Information is limited regarding hyperglycaemia in acute STEMI affecting urban minority populations, or how CIIT fares in such realworld settings.
Methods and results:We assembled an acute STEMI registry at an inner-city health system, focusing on patients with initial blood glucose ≥180 mg/dL to determine the impact of CIIT vs usual care. Clinical and outcomes data were added through linkage to electronic records. Inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting using propensity scores (PS) was used to compare CIIT vs no CIIT. The 1067 patients included were mostly Hispanic or African American; 356 had blood glucose ≥180 mg/dL. Such pronounced hyperglycaemia was related to female sex, minority race-ethnicity and lower socioeconomic score, and associated with increased death and death or CVD readmission. CIIT was preferentially used in patients with marked hyperglycaemia and was associated with in-hospital hypoglycaemia (21% vs 11%, P = .019) and, after PS weighting, with increased in-hospital (RR 3.23, 95% CI 0.94, 11.06) and 1-year (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.02, 4.98) mortality. No significant differences were observed for death at 30 days or throughout follow-up, or death and readmission at any time point.
Conclusions:Pronounced hyperglycaemia was common and associated with adverse prognosis in this urban population. CIIT met with selective use and was associated with hypoglycaemia, together with increased mortality at specific time points. Given the burden of metabolic disease, particularly among race-ethnic minorities, assessing Units (CCU) of our two major sites, the Moses and Weiler divisions of MHS. The initial FS or venous blood glucose was obtained in the Emergency Room or Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (CCL), and the benefits of CIIT is a prerogative that requires evaluation in large-scale randomized trials.
K E Y W O R D Shyperglycaemia, outcomes, STEMI
Background:
Shared decision-making in cardiology is increasingly recommended to improve patient-centeredness of care. Decision aids can improve patient knowledge and decisional quality but are infrequently used in real-world practice. This mixed-methods study tests the efficacy and acceptability of a decision aid integrated into the electronic health record (Integrated Decision Aid [IDeA]) and delivered by clinicians for patients with atrial fibrillation considering options to reduce stroke risk. We aimed to determine whether the IDeA improves patient knowledge, reduces decisional conflict, and is seen as acceptable by clinicians and patients.
Methods:
A small cluster randomized trial included 6 cardiovascular clinicians and 66 patients randomized either to the IDeA (HealthDecision) or usual care (clinician discretion) during a clinical encounter when stroke prevention treatment options were discussed. The primary outcome was patient knowledge of personalized stroke risk. Exploratory outcomes included decisional conflict, values concordance, trust, the presence of a shared decision-making process, and patient knowledge related to time spent using the IDeA. Additionally, we conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients who used the IDeA were conducted to assess acceptability and predictions of future use.
Results:
The IDeA significantly increased patients’ knowledge of their stroke risk (odds ratio, 3.88 [95% CI, 1.39–10.78];
P
<0.01]). Patients had less uncertainty about their final decision (
P
=0.04). There were no significant differences in values concordance, trust in clinician or shared decision-making. Despite training, each clinician used the IDeA differently. Qualitative analysis revealed patients prefer using the IDeA earlier in their diagnosis. Clinicians were satisfied with the IDeA, yet varied in the contexts in which they planned to use it in the future.
Conclusions:
Using an Integrated Decision Aid, or IDeA, increases patient knowledge and lessens uncertainty for decision-making around stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Qualitative data provide insight into potential implementation strategies in real-world practice.
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.