Citations

Background: Longitudinal assessments are increasingly common as a component of continuing certification programs offered by medical specialty boards. The goal of this study was to understand anesthesiologists’ utilization pattern, performance, and perception of the longitudinal assessment program administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology (Raleigh, North Carolina). Methods: The authors analyzed assessment usage and survey data from all anesthesiologists who participated in the Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology (MOCA) Minute from January 2018 to December 2019. Results: During the 24-month study period, 25,404 anesthesiologists completed all 120 questions assigned in at least 1 calendar year, collectively 5,801,160 responses to 1,646 unique questions. Participants were more likely to complete questions at the end of each quarter, with the highest frequency at the end of the year. Seventy-five percent of responses were first-time attempts, and 17% were first repeats. The median interval between original question presentation and first repeat was 314 days. The mean ± SD percent correct score was 68.3 ± 8.0% for first-time questions and 75.5 ± 12.6% for first repeats. The mean ± SD time to answer a first-time question was 26.8 ± 13.1 s, with shorter times for questions with correct than incorrect responses (25.0 ± 12.7 vs . 30.7 ± 13.3 s; time difference, −5.69 s; 95% CI, −5.71 to −5.66; P < 0.001). Of 5.11 million responses with ratings of relevance (88.2% of all responses analyzed), 4.86 million (95.2%) were felt to be somewhat or very relevant to practice. The percent correct scores were higher for responses with higher relevance and confidence ratings. For responses rated “not relevant,” “somewhat relevant,” and “very relevant,” the percent correct was 58.5%, 67.6%, and 77.0%, respectively; for responses rated as “unsure,” “somewhat confident,” and “very confident,” the percent correct was 53.6%, 67.9%, and 84.4%, respectively. Conclusions: MOCA Minute was generally used as designed. Evidence of learning was suggested by improved performance on repeat questions.

Early Exposure to Anesthesia and Learning Disabilities in a Population-based Birth Cohort. By Wilder RT, Flick RP, Sprung J, Katusic SK, Barbaresi WJ, Mickelson C, Gleich SJ, Schroeder DR, Weaver AL, and Warner DO. A nesthesiology 2009; 110:796–804. Reprinted with permission. Anesthetic drugs administered to immature animals may cause neurohistopathologic changes and alterations in behavior. The authors studied association between anesthetic exposure before age 4 yr and the development of reading, written language, and math learning disabilities. This was a population-based, retrospective birth cohort study. The educational and medical records of all children born to mothers residing in five townships of Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 1976 to 1982 and who remained in the community at 5 yr of age were reviewed to identify children with learning disabilities. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for anesthetic exposure as a predictor of learning disabilities, adjusting for gestational age at birth, sex, and birth weight. Of the 5,357 children in this cohort, 593 received general anesthesia before age 4 yr. Compared with those not receiving anesthesia (n = 4,764), a single exposure to anesthesia (n = 449) was not associated with an increased risk of learning disabilities (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.27). However, children receiving two anesthetics (n = 100) or three or more anesthetics (n = 44) were at increased risk for learning disabilities (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.37; and hazard ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.60 to 4.24, respectively). The risk for learning disabilities increased with longer cumulative duration of anesthesia exposure (expressed as a continuous variable; P = 0.016). Exposure to anesthesia was a significant risk factor for the later development of learning disabilities in children receiving multiple but not single anesthetics. These data cannot reveal whether anesthesia itself may contribute to learning disabilities or whether the need for anesthesia is a marker for other unidentified factors that contribute to learning disabilities.

The FAITH! (Fostering African-American Improvement in Total Health) Cardiovascular Health and Wellness Program is more than a decade-long community-based participatory research initiative aimed at addressing cardiovascular health disparities among African-Americans in Minnesota. Founded in 2013, the program employs a culturally tailored, community-driven approach by partnering with African-American faith communities to promote cardiovascular health through education, digital health tools, and multilevel interventions targeting the social determinants of health. Grounded in community-based participatory research principles, FAITH! prioritizes equitable academic-community partnerships, co-learning, community capacity building, and shared ownership in all aspects of research and implementation. The program’s exemplary innovations include the NIH-funded FAITH! Trial, a randomized clinical trial, testing a mobile health intervention (the FAITH! App) co-created with the African-American community, and the Techquity by FAITH! study. Techquity by FAITH! evaluates the effectiveness of a culturally relevant, community-informed mHealth intervention supported by a Digital Health Advocate network to improve overall cardiovascular health and digital health literacy. During its evolution, FAITH! has addressed emergent public health crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, by adapting programming to provide emergency preparedness resources, health education, and vaccine outreach. Key outcomes include sustainable church-based health ministries, increased research participation, and successful translation of research into practice. The program has also contributed to research workforce development by mentoring and training diverse early-career scholars and community leaders in community-based participatory research and cardiovascular health equity research. Lessons learned highlight the transformative impact of community-based participatory research in building trust, facilitating culturally relevant dissemination, and sustaining health equity initiatives. The FAITH! model demonstrates a scalable, community-led strategy for advancing cardiovascular health in underserved populations and provides a blueprint for future initiatives aiming to reduce racial health disparities.

Abstract Background Flow‐related ghost artifact from a 3D Magnetization Prepared Rapid Gradient Echo (MPRAGE) sequence results from unsaturated magnetization of incoming arterial flow. This is especially common on MR scanners equipped with smaller radiofrequency (RF) transmit coils. A high‐performance compact 3T (C3T) scanner features a smaller RF‐transmit coil (inner diameter 37 cm, length 40 cm), leading to a rapid fall‐off of the B1 field below the neck. This configuration results in more intense flow‐related ghost artifacts, especially in younger patients. Purpose The C3T scanner's smaller RF‐transmit coil provides RF field coverage over the brain region, causing bright in‐flow arterial signals and flow‐related artifacts in the conventional 3D‐MPRAGE scans. The purpose of this study is to suppress these artifacts by adding a RF saturation band (RFSB) pulses to the 3D‐MPRAGE sequence. Methods The RFSB was added to the 3D‐MPRAGE sequence as a preparation pulse option. To test the effectiveness, 37 subjects were scanned on the C3T under an IRB‐approved protocol using 3D‐MPRAGE with and without RFSB. Ten of those subjects underwent repeated scans with and without RFSB to evaluate test‐retest reliability. A consensus evaluation by two neuroradiologists was performed on all data to compare signal to noise ratio, image contrast, presence of artifacts, and diagnostic confidence. Quantitative analysis included calculating test‐retest differences by image subtraction and evaluating the variance in flow‐artifact‐induced image intensity between the scans with and without RFSB. Additionally, one subject was scanned on a whole‐body 3T scanner using a transmit/receive (T/R) head coil to demonstrate the method's applicability across different MRI platforms as a proof of concept. Results The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test of the neuroradiologist evaluations showed a significant reduction in artifacts and an improvement in diagnostic confidence in the posterior fossa region with and without RFSB ( p < 0.0001). Test–retest analysis showed that adding RFSB significantly reduced image intensity variability in the cerebellum, even among subjects without visible flow artifacts. The normalized difference decreased from 8.71% to 6.41% ( p = 0.0059), suggesting improved image reliability in regions prone to flow‐related artifacts. Additionally, similar findings were observed in scans on a whole‐body 3T with a T/R head coil, demonstrating the broader applicability of this method. Conclusion Incorporating RFSB into 3D‐MPRAGE scans effectively reduces flow‐related ghost artifact on the C3T scanner, improving image quality and diagnostic confidence. These findings suggest that the proposed method could be widely implemented across MRI systems utilizing a smaller RF‐transmit coil.

Background Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging neuromodulation therapy for chronic pain, yet its use in clinical practice varies significantly. Although temporary PNS is widely incorporated, either as a screening trial or a treatment itself, the evidence supporting the use of temporary PNS prior to permanent implantation is limited. We aimed to compare pain relief, opioid consumption, and adverse events between an approach implementing temporary PNS before permanent implantation (temporary-to-permanent (TTP)) vs proceeding directly to permanent PNS implantation (direct-to-permanent (DTP)). Methods A multicenter retrospective study was undertaken at seven major academic institutions from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2024. Adult patients who underwent permanent PNS implantation for the treatment of chronic pain conditions were included and were divided into TTP or DTP cohorts based on their clinical approach. The dual primary outcomes were pain relief and opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) at 6 months compared with baseline before any PNS therapy. Multivariable Tobit regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of pain relief at 6 months using a stepwise approach. Results A total of 130 patients were analyzed (54 in TTP approach, 76 in DTP approach). Patient-reported percentage pain relief was 56.7%±27.9% at 6 months compared with baseline (before PNS implantation) in the TTP cohort, and 45.1%±33.6% in the DTP cohort. The estimated mean percentage pain relief at 6 months was similar in the TTP and DTP cohorts (between-group difference 15.24%; 95% CI −0.32 to 30.80, p=0.052), with consistent findings after sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation. Opioid consumption declined similarly in the TTP (−3.1±9.9 mg) and DTP (−2.1±8.1 mg) cohorts at 6 months with no statistical difference between cohorts (mean between-group difference: −1.00, 95% CI −4.57 to 2.57, p=0.580), and with consistent findings after sensitivity analysis. Device explantation rates and adverse event profiles were comparable between cohorts. Conclusion Although temporary PNS is widely performed prior to permanent PNS implantation, there was no evidence that the TTP approach is associated with superior analgesic outcomes compared with the DTP approach. Further, patients in both approaches achieved clinically meaningful pain relief at 6 months compared with baseline status prior to PNS therapy.