There are controversies about the possible benefits of off pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) compared to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCABG). For a better perspective on this important issue, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, comparing the two techniques. The objective of this study was to verify which technique applied in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery, OPCABG or ONCABG, provides better results through a meta-analysis of published randomized trials comparing the two techniques. We carried out a computer-based literature search in PubMed, Embase, B-on and Science Direct from March 2009 to January 2010. The studies covered were recovered according to predetermined criteria. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was performed in order to evaluate the differences between the two revascularization techniques (OPCABG versus ONCABG) regarding mortality and morbidity. Selected studies did not include patients at high risk and long-term longitudinal evaluations. The meta-analysis focused on nine randomized clinical trials, corresponding to a total of 75,086 patients, and compared OPCABG to ONCABG. Regarding mortality, a reduction of 18% in the risk of cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.70 to 0.98, p = 0.03) and 27% in the risk of stroke postoperatively (OR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85, p = 0.0001) were observed, both in favor of OPCABG. Concerning the occurrence of complications associated with the procedure, no significant differences were found between the two surgical techniques, particularly with regard to the occurrence of kidney complications (OR: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.84-1.14, p = 0, 74) and sepsis (OR 0.98, 95%CI: 0.64-1.51, p = 0.93, respectively). Off-pump CABG significantly reduces the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (mortality and CVA) compared to on-pump CABG surgery.

Background Arts-based pedagogical tools have been increasingly incorporated into medical education. Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) is a research-based, constructivist teaching methodology that aims to improve visual literacy, critical thinking, and communication skills through the process of investigating works of art. Harvard Medical School pioneered the application of VTS within medical education in 2004. While there are several studies investigating the use of VTS, there is a need to systematically assess the different programs that exist for medical education and their efficacy in improving relevant clinical skills. This systematic review aims to critically analyse the available evidence of the effectiveness of VTS in medical education to guide future research and provide a framework to adapt medical curricula. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases (through November 2022) was conducted to identify studies of VTS-based interventions in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The extracted data was then narratively synthesized. Results Of 5759 unique citations, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. After reference review, one additional study was included. Therefore, 11 studies were included in our review. Of these, eight reported VTS-based interventions for undergraduate medical students and three reported interventions in residency training, specifically in dermatology and ophthalmology. The main goal of most studies was to increase observational or visual diagnostic skills. Three of the studies in undergraduate medical education and two in postgraduate achieved a statistically significant improvement in observational skills in post-course evaluations. Some studies reported increased tolerance for ambiguity and empathy. Conclusions Although the studies varied considerably in study design, learning objectives, and outcomes, findings consistently indicate that the VTS approach can serve as a vehicle to develop crucial clinical competencies, encouraging more in-depth visual analysis that could be applied when observing a patient. Despite some limitations of the included studies (lack of control groups, self-selection bias, or non-standard outcome measures), the results of this review provide support for greater inclusion of VTS training in the medical curriculum.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract