Search

Objectives: The Prospective Randomized On-X Mechanical Prosthesis Versus St Jude Medical Mechanical Prosthesis Evaluation (PROSE) trial purpose was to investigate whether a current-generation mechanical prosthesis (On-X; On-X Life Technologies/Artivion Inc) reduced the incidence of thromboembolic-related complications compared with a previous-generation mechanical prosthesis (St Jude Medical Mechanical Prosthesis; Abbott/St Jude Medical). This second report documents the valve-related complications by individual prostheses and by Western and Developing populations. Methods: The PROSE trial study was conducted in 28 worldwide centers and incorporated 855 subjects randomized between 2003 and 2016. The study enrollment was discontinued on August 31, 2016. The study protocol, and analyses of 10 demographic variables and 24 risk factors were published in detail in 2021. Results: The total patient population (N = 855) included patients receiving an On-X valve (n = 462) and a St Jude Medical valve (n = 393). The overall freedom evaluation showed no differences at 5 years between the prostheses for thromboembolism or for valve thrombosis. There were also no differences in mortality. There were several differences between Developing and Western populations. The freedom relations at 5 years for mortality favored Western over Developing populations. Valve thrombosis was differentiated by position and site: aortic

ABSTRACT: Objective: To explore the existing evidence on patient understanding of and/or participation in infection-related care in surgical specialties. Method: A scoping review of the literature was conducted. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and grey literature sources were searched using predefined search criteria for policies, guidelines, and studies in the English language. Data synthesis was done through content and thematic analysis to identify key themes in the included studies. Results: The initial search identified 604 studies, of which 41 (36 from high-income and five from low- and middle-income countries) were included in the final review. Most of the included studies focused on measures to engage patients in infection prevention and control (IPC) activities, with few examples of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) engagement strategies. While patient engagement interventions in infection-related care varied depending on study goals, surgical wound management was the most common intervention. AMS engagement was primarily limited to needs assessment, without follow-up to address such needs. Conclusion: Existing evidence highlights a gap in patient participation in infection-related care in the surgical pathway. Standardization of patient engagement strategies is challenging, particularly in the context of surgery, where several factors influence how the patient can engage and retain information. Infection-related patient engagement and participation strategies in surgery need to be inclusive and contextually fit.