Outcomes of low-vision services using optometric and multidisciplinary approaches: a non-randomized comparison

Consecutive patients (n = 215) who were referred to optometric (55%) or multidisciplinary (45%) low-vision services and above 50 years of age were recruited from four hospitals in the Netherlands. They completed two vision-related quality of life questionnaires, the Vision Quality of Life Core Measure (VCM1) and the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (LVQOL), before their first visit with low-vision services and 1 year later. At follow-up, patients referred to multidisciplinary low-vision services had lower scores on the mobility subscale of the LVQOL than patients referred to optometric low-vision services [5.3 points; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2-10.5]. Paired sample t-tests for the two groups of patients taken together show improvement for the VCM1 (3.1 points; 95% CI: 0.6-5.6) and deterioration for the basic aspects of vision (3.5 points; 95% CI: 1.1-5.9) and the mobility (6.6 points; 95% CI: 3.7-9.5) subscales of the LVQOL. In conclusion, people referred to optometric services showed less deterioration in mobility than those referred to multidisciplinary services. No differences were observed for any of the other subscales of the LVQOL and the VCM1. Future research in this field should include randomized controlled designs comparing low-vision services with no treatment or placebo.     

Intensive care research coordinators: who are they and what do they do? Results of a binational survey.

Research coordinators in intensive care are a growing specialty about which little is known. This cross-sectional study surveyed the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Coordinators' Group (n = 49) regarding demographics, education, employment history, job structure, and role content. Most research coordinators were highly qualified and experienced nurses who undertake pharmaceutical trials, multicenter projects, departmental medical and nursing research, audits and data registries, and their own projects.     

Mechanismen der arteriellen Restenose und Therapieansätze zur Prävention

Both vascular surgery and endovascular interventions traumatise the arterial wall, especially the endothelium. The vessel responds with neointimal hyperplasia and/or constrictive remodelling, and this is still the limiting factor in curative interventions. Stent placement prevents constrictive remodelling but is the main trigger for in-stent restenosis. Hyperproliferation of neointimal tissue is the main response to arterial thrombosis, local inflammation or medio-intimal injury such as occurs, for example, after balloon dilatation in the region of arterial anastomoses or of a thrombectomy (Fogarty-manoeuvre). At present, research on prevention of restenosis is focused on inhibiting neointimal hyperproliferation by using drug-eluting stents, and especially sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents. In addition, further experimental research work is in progress, with the aim of esablishing new treatment regimens and solving the problem of neointimal formation, thrombosis and constrictive remodelling. These include both local and systemic pharmacological therapy, brachy- and laser therapy, and many genetic treatment options, some of which are currently the subjects of experimental studies and early-stage clinical trials. Gene therapy seems like a promising way of preventing restenosis, but has not yet been tested in clinical trials. In the near future, selective, simultaneous, and perhaps even polyphasic regulation for gene silencing of two or more genes involved in the development of restenosis could improve the long-term patency rate.