Background-Aortic insufficiency (AI) is increasingly recognized as a complication of continuous flow left ventricularassist device support; however, its long-term prevalence, clinical significance, and efficacy of potential interventions are not well known. Methods and Results-We studied the prevalence and management of AI in 232 patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device at our institution. Patients with aortic valve (AV) surgery before left ventricular assist device implantation were excluded from analysis. To examine the prevalence of de novo AI, patients without preoperative AI were divided into a retrospective and a prospective cohort based on whether a dedicated speed optimization study had been performed at the time of discharge. Forty-three patients underwent AV repair at the time of implant, and 3 subsequently developed greater than mild AI. In patients without surgical AV manipulation and no AI at the time of implant, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that freedom from greater than mild de novo AI at 1 year was 77.6±4.2%, and that at least moderate AI is expected to develop in 37.6±13.3% after 3 years. Nonopening of the AV was strongly associated with de novo AI development in patients without prospective discharge speed optimization. Seven of 21 patients with at least moderate AI developed symptomatic heart failure requiring surgical intervention. Conclusions-AI is common in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices and may lead to clinical decompensation requiring surgical correction. The prevalence of AI is substantially less in patients whose AV opens, and optimized loading conditions may reduce AI prevalence in those patients in whom AV opening cannot be achieved.(Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7:310-319.)

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We have the right to demand collective and "common" ownership of the biocodes of gender, sex, and race. We must wrest them from private hands, from technocrats and from the pharmacoporn complex. Such a process of resistance and redistribution could be called technosomatic communism. (Preciado, 2013: 352) This statement, from Paul B. Preciado's book Testo Junkie: Sex, Drugs, and Biopolitics in the Pharmacopornographic Era (2013), refigures the call to arms as a call to testosterone. The text sets a fictionalised first-person account of Preciado's self-styled experiments with the synthetic androgen Testogel against a bold theory of gender in the era of hormone pharmacology. First published in Spanish in 2008, Testo Junkie appeared in a French edition translated by Preciado that same year, and an English translation by Bruce Benderson in 2013. Just as Testogel has precipitated Preciado's gendered transformation, so the book has undergone its own metamorphosis across successive editions and printings. While early editions give the author's name as Beatriz Preciado, rendered in the text as "BP", Testo Junkie was recently republished with a new name on the cover: Paul B. Preciado. A note on the fourth printing reads, "Understand that Paul absorbs and assumes all that was once BP" (Preciado, 2013: 10). This note reflects not only the author's shifting gender identity, but his exploratory relationship with the first-person narrative mode. Indeed, the book's opening sentence-"This book is not a memoir" (Preciado, 2013: 11)explicitly refuses the conventions not of gender but of genre. Testo Junkie is many things at once: a fictionalised account of its author-narrator's use of synthetic androgens, an alternative history of post-Fordism, and a manifesto for gender revolution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this final dimension of Testo Junkie-its manifesto for 'technosomatic communism'-has been the most controversial (Preciado, 2013: 352). The book's central thesis argues that the post-industrial economy is structured around the material production of sexual subjectivity by means of molecular and multimedia technologies-drugs and pornography, in other words. Rather than simply describing this 'pharmacopornographic regime', Preciado finds the seeds of resistance in its biopolitical mechanisms (Preciado, 2013: 35). Modifying Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity to encompass the 'bioperformative' practices of hormonal supplementation, he writes that Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics, 2(2), 19

No abstract

What does it mean to diagnose a literary work with attention deficit disorder (ADD)? This article traces how US literary minimalism came, in the late twentieth century, to be understood as a literary counterpart to the new diagnostic category of ADD. Pursuing some links between literary criticism and the third volume of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the article shows how minimalism was seen to resemble the ADD patient because both were defined in terms of a descriptive surface that yielded no depths for expert excavation. Engaging with recent debates on the relative function and value of description and interpretation in literary studies, the article asks whether the notion of an ADD literary aesthetics, grounded in critical disability studies, might provide a route out of the dichotomy of suspicious analysis and reparative description. To pursue this question, the article performs a close reading of Mary Robison’s Why Did I Ever (2001), a novel narrated by Money Breton, a woman with an ADD diagnosis. Drawing on the critical disability studies concept of cripistemology, the article shows how Robison’s novel both dismantles the trope of minimalism’s attention deficit and demands a reformulation of the relationship between writing and diagnosis.