Citations

Background Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, specifically surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter (TAVR), is among the most frequently performed cardiac interventions globally, yet anticoagulation strategies after implantation remain incompletely defined. Atrial fibrillation, notably prevalent pre- and post-operatively in these patients, substantially amplifies thromboembolic risk and complicates decision-making in an already elderly, frail, and comorbid population. Objectives To critically evaluate current anticoagulation strategies after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement across sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation in both SAVR and TAVR, and to identify evidence gaps and guideline inconsistencies. Methods We conducted a narrative review of major international guidelines (ESC/EACTS 2025, ACC/AHA 2020, and NICE 2021) and key clinical trials on antithrombotic therapy in valve replacement populations. Focus was placed on bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, with mechanical and non-aortic valves excluded. Results Aspirin monotherapy is the most consistently supported strategy after bioprosthetic TAVR in sinus rhythm, though guidelines diverge on duration and recommendation strength. In atrial fibrillation, all three guidelines apply uniform CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc-based frameworks irrespective of AF phenotype, procedural context, or detection modality, reflecting lacking evidence rather than deliberate clinical judgement. No trial has enrolled patients specifically with new-onset post-procedural AF or stratified by AF subtype, and subclinical AF after bioprosthetic AVR remains entirely uncharacterised. Conclusions Guideline divergence reflects a structurally inadequate evidence base rather than genuine clinical equipoise. Individualised decisions informed by procedure type, AF phenotype, frailty, and bleeding risk are required to guide clinical practice, alongside an adequately powered stratified randomised trial incorporating mandatory continuous rhythm monitoring.

ABSTRACT Undergraduate anatomy teaching in the UK has been progressively compressed, with reduced contact time and variable integration across medical programs. We examined final‐year medical students' perceptions of anatomy teaching, focusing on total contact hours, longitudinal continuity, and exposure to traditional and emerging teaching modalities. A national cross‐sectional survey was distributed to final‐year students across 40 UK medical schools between December 2024 and February 2025. Satisfaction with anatomy teaching, perceived importance of anatomy for future practice, contact hours, continuity across program years, and exposure to specific teaching modalities and technologies were assessed. Comparative analyses used non‐parametric tests and ANOVA with post hoc testing where appropriate. 628 students responded. Dissatisfaction was greatest for teaching quantity and continuity, whereas breadth, depth, and quality were rated more favourably. Students receiving more than 200 h of anatomy teaching reported significantly higher satisfaction than those receiving fewer than 200 h ( p < 0.001). Satisfaction also varied by continuity pattern, with teaching delivered continuously over three or more years associated with higher satisfaction than shorter or non‐continuous models ( p < 0.01). Cadaveric dissection was the most preferred modality, but higher satisfaction was associated with exposure to selected adjuncts, particularly 3D imaging software and 3D printed models (both p < 0.001); VR/AR showed no significant association. Perceived importance of anatomy differed by intended specialty, with students interested in surgery rating anatomy as most important ( p < 0.0001). Student dissatisfaction with UK undergraduate anatomy teaching appears to stem less from content coverage than from insufficient teaching time and poor longitudinal integration. Anatomy should be protected as a multi‐year component of the curriculum, complemented by selectively integrated adjunctive tools rather than indiscriminate technology adoption.

Abstract Anatomy is fundamental to clinical competence. However, reduced contact hours, limited cadaveric access and difficulties with technological integration raise concerns about students’ preparedness and development. The current study evaluated various practices, student perceptions, challenges, teaching quality and quantity of UK medicine anatomy education. A national cross-sectional survey was distributed to final-year medical students at 40 UK medical schools to assess teaching quality, student satisfaction, confidence and theimpact of emerging technologies and challenges associated with anatomy education. 628 students responded and 55.3% (n=347) preferred a curriculum integrating traditional teaching and emerging technologies,73.3% (n=460) were dissatisfied with teaching quantity and continuity, and 42.7% (n=268) were dissatisfied with teaching breadth and quality. Satisfaction was significantly higher for users of 3D imaging software (Users Mean=3.63 vs. Non-users=3.28;p&lt;0.001,rrb=0.172) and 3D printed simulation models (3.59 vs. 3.23;p&lt;0.001,rrb=0.181), despite familiarity among 32.3% (n=203) and 27.9% (n=175), respectively. 3D imaging software was most recognised (59.2%, n=372), followed by 3D printed simulation models (55.4%,n=348) and VR/AR (32.3%,n=203). Satisfaction was high for continuous teaching across ≥3 years (F(3,624)=24.91,p&lt;0.001) Kruskal-Wallis H test showed significant variation in perceived importance of anatomy across specialties (H(5)=75.99,p&lt;0.0001), with Surgery rating it highest (Median=5.0) and GP/Medicine lower (Median=4.0). Students are dissatisfied with the current curriculum content, structure and provision of anatomy teaching. Emerging technologies could enhance satisfaction, address limitations of cadaveric dissection and extend teaching beyond the classroom. Collaborative efforts among anatomists, clinicians and academics are essential in standardising clinically curricula and sound technological integration (VR/AR/3D models).

Background With improved cardiac surgical outcomes, attention has shifted to patient-centred outcomes, including cosmetic appearances of surgical scars. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) is often promoted for its cosmetic benefits, yet empirical evidence remains limited. This study aimed to systematically evaluate scar-specific outcomes comparing MICS to conventional full median sternotomy (FMS) in adult cardiac surgery. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Central, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2025. Studies comparing MICS to FMS, reporting scar-related patient-reported outcomes, wound complications, or cosmetic satisfaction, were included. The primary outcome was scar assessment using validated instruments. Random-effects models calculated standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Twenty-two studies comprising 3131 patients (1459 MICS, 1672 FMS) met inclusion criteria. MICS demonstrated significantly better scar assessment scores (SMD −0.74, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.22; p < 0.01; I 2 = 88%, six studies), higher patient satisfaction rates (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21–1.66; p < 0.001; I 2 = 84%, 12 studies), and reduced wound complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20–0.47; p < 0.001; I 2 = 0%, nine studies). Only six studies reported validated scar assessment scores, highlighting limited integration of these measures. Substantial heterogeneity was observed due to diverse assessment tools and surgical techniques. Conclusions MICS can offer significant advantages in scar-specific outcomes compared to FMS in carefully selected patient populations. Cosmetic outcomes should be interpreted within the context of overall effectiveness and may support shared decision making only when clinical outcomes between surgical approaches are comparable. The lack of standardised scar assessment protocols and limited reporting of cosmetic outcomes represent critical gaps. Future research should prioritise standardised scar evaluation tools and expand cosmetic outcome reporting across all cardiac surgical procedures.

Background Burnout arises from prolonged, unresolved work-related stress and adversely affects professional performance and overall well-being. Resident doctors and medical students are particularly vulnerable because of the demands of balancing clinical, academic and related responsibilities. Aims This study aimed to assess self-reported burnout and related stressors among UK resident doctors and medical students, and estimate the economic impact of burnout-related absenteeism among resident doctors. Method Self-report questionnaires assessing burnout and related stressors were distributed to UK resident doctors and medical students. A total of 2793 responses were received: 1439 (51.5%) from resident doctors and 1354 (48.5%) from medical students. Economic losses from absenteeism were calculated with a human capital approach. Results Burnout was reported by 70% ( n = 1008) of resident doctors and 65.7% ( n = 889) of medical students. Notably, 56.8% ( n = 573) and 79.3% ( n = 705) of resident doctors and medical students affected by burnout, respectively, were unaware of available support services. Relocation stress (85.1% of residents and 62.6% of students), financial stress (53.9% of residents and 57.8% of students) and poor work–life balance (32.1% of residents and 20.7% of students) were commonly reported. The annual economic burden of absenteeism related to burnout among resident doctors was estimated to reach £251.5 million. Conclusions Burnout among UK resident doctors and medical students may reflect a combination of underlying factors, including financial strain, relocation stress and difficulties with work–life balance. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions that support well-being and address financial and relocation challenges, which may, in turn, help prevent burnout and improve retention within the medical workforce. Reducing burnout and associated stressors may also help lessen its economic impact, allowing resources to be redirected towards patient care.

Motility disorders, particularly gastroparesis, are prevalent complications following solid organ transplantation, significantly impacting quality of life, nutritional status, graft survival, and mortality. This comprehensive review synthesises evidence from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, management, and prognostic factors across transplant types. Mechanisms include vagal nerve injury (highest in lung transplants, prevalence 40–91%), immunosuppressive effects (e.g., tacrolimus accelerates motility; mycophenolate impairs it), surgical trauma, microbiome dysbiosis (reduced Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio), and metabolic factors like post-transplant diabetes (OR 5.17 in kidney recipients). Pediatric and thoracic recipients face the highest risks, with lung transplant gastroparesis conferring a 2.7-fold increased mortality/retransplantation hazard (p < 0.05). Diagnosis relies on gastric emptying scintigraphy (gold standard, sensitivity 85–95%) and wireless motility capsules (100% sensitivity for delay), while management encompasses prokinetics (60–80% response), endoscopic G-POEM (85% success), gastric electrical stimulation (100% quality-of-life improvement in series), and nutritional support. Prognostic factors include younger age (better intervention response), aetiology (anatomical worse than metabolic), and early therapy success. Outcomes vary: lung recipients experience severe impacts on chronic allograft dysfunction (83% oesophageal motility abnormalities correlate with 66–67% rejection). Future directions emphasise microbiome therapies, AI predictive models (AUC 0.85), and wearables for continuous monitoring. Multidisciplinary approaches are essential to balance immunosuppression with GI management, addressing ethical dilemmas like drug interactions and access disparities. Ultimately, early screening and personalised interventions can mitigate complications, enhancing long-term transplant success.

Abstract Background Resident Doctors (RDs) in the UK must balance clinical training with non-clinical administrative tasks. Concerns increase over how these tasks impact their professional development, job satisfaction and patient care. The shift toward consultant-delivered care has led to a redistribution of responsibilities, increasing administrative burden on RDs. Aims This study aims to quantify how RDs allocate time between patient-facing and non-patient-facing tasks and assess impact on job satisfaction. Design National multicentre observational cohort study. Methodology The Time Allocation in Clinical Training study is a multicentre, observational cohort study conducted over seven months (January–July 2024) at secondary NHS centres. 137 RDs, from Foundation Year 1 to Specialty Training Year 8, were observed for 4-hour periods, with time tracked using stopwatches for five task categories. An optional survey assessed job satisfaction, rated on a five-point Likert scale. Results RDs spent 73.0% of their time on non-patient-facing tasks, and 17.9% on patient-facing activities. Women spent more time on non-patient-facing tasks compared to men (75.0% vs. 69.9%, P = 0.03). Junior RDs (Foundation years and Core trainees) spent significantly less time on patient-facing tasks compared to senior RDs (ST6-8) (38.4% vs. 17.8%; P = 0.004). Most RDs (62%) reported dissatisfaction with the administrative burden. Electronic health record users spent significantly more time on administrative tasks than paper-based record users (44.1% vs. 37.3%; P = 0.02). Conclusions The study reveals a significant imbalance between clinical and administrative tasks, with excessive administrative workload contributing to RD dissatisfaction. Streamlining administrative duties and integrating digital solutions is crucial for improving job satisfaction, clinical development and healthcare delivery in the NHS.

Abstract Introduction The new preference-informed allocation (PIA) system introduced for the 2024 UK cohort Foundation Programme (UKFPO) marks a shift away from the traditional meritocratic ‘ranking’ used in previous years. Instead of appointment to Foundation Programme places, PIA is a computer-generated allocation and deanery preferencing system. This change has raised numerous concerns among both students and clinicians. Aims To investigate the opinions of medical students on the new UKFPO PIA system. Methodology An online questionnaire was distributed to medical students graduating in 2024, 2025, or 2026 across the UK. Results In total, 2297 responses were collected and 2288 were included in the study. Overall, 51.6% (n = 1183) of respondents felt the PIA system was unfair, 76.3% (n = 1746) felt they had lost control of their application, and 46.3% (n = 1049) had noticed a negative effect on their physical or mental health. Notably, 48.2% (n = 1094) of students who responded are now considering a career outside the National Health Service (NHS). Conclusions Overall, the PIA system falls short of students’ expectations and has led to record numbers of students considering careers outside the NHS. Further changes to this system are needed and should aim to address fairness and equity while rewarding students for their hard work. According to these data, the PIA system risks further deteriorating workforce morale and attrition rates.