The effects of type of interval, sensory modality, base duration, and psychophysical task on the discrimination of brief time intervals

The present study was designed to investigate the influences of type of psychophysical task (two-alternative forced-choice [2AFC] and reminder tasks), type of interval (filled vs. empty), sensory modality (auditory vs. visual), and base duration (ranging from 100 through 1,000 ms) on performance on duration discrimination. All of these factors were systematically varied in an experiment comprising 192 participants. This approach allowed for obtaining information not only on the general (main) effect of each factor alone, but also on the functional interplay and mutual interactions of some or all of these factors combined. Temporal sensitivity was markedly higher for auditory than for visual intervals, as well as for the reminder relative to the 2AFC task. With regard to base duration, discrimination performance deteriorated with decreasing base durations for intervals below 400 ms, whereas longer intervals were not affected. No indication emerged that overall performance on duration discrimination was influenced by the type of interval, and only two significant interactions were apparent: Base Duration × Type of Interval and Base Duration × Sensory Modality. With filled intervals, the deteriorating effect of base duration was limited to very brief base durations, not exceeding 100 ms, whereas with empty intervals, temporal discriminability was also affected for the 200-ms base duration. Similarly, the performance decrement observed with visual relative to auditory intervals increased with decreasing base durations. These findings suggest that type of task, sensory modality, and base duration represent largely independent sources of variance for performance on duration discrimination that can be accounted for by distinct nontemporal mechanisms.

Clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic valve stenosis according to the assigned treatment modality

OBJECTIVES This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality. BACKGROUND The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown. METHODS Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year. RESULTS LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.

Effects of dialysis modality on blood loss, bleeding complications and transfusion requirements in critically ill patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure.

Blood loss and bleeding complications may often be observed in critically ill patients on renal replacement therapies (RRT). Here we investigate procedural (i.e. RRT-related) and non-procedural blood loss as well as transfusion requirements in regard to the chosen mode of dialysis (i.e. intermittent haemodialysis [IHD] versus continuous veno-venous haemofiltration [CVVH]). Two hundred and fifty-two patients (122 CVVH, 159 male; aged 61.5±13.9 years) with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure were analysed in a sub-analysis of the prospective randomised controlled clinical trial-CONVINT-comparing IHD and CVVH. Bleeding complications including severity of bleeding and RRT-related blood loss were assessed. We observed that 3.6% of patients died related to severe bleeding episodes (between group P=0.94). Major all-cause bleeding complications were observed in 23% IHD versus 26% of CVVH group patients (P=0.95). Under CVVH, the rate of RRT-related blood loss events (57.4% versus 30.4%, P=0.01) and mean total blood volume lost was increased (222.3±291.9 versus 112.5±222.7 ml per patient, P <0.001). Overall, transfusion rates did not differ between the study groups. In patients with sepsis, transfusion rates of all blood products were significantly higher when compared to cardiogenic shock (all P <0.01) or other conditions. In conclusion, procedural and non-procedural blood loss may often be observed in critically ill patients on RRT. In CVVH-treated patients, procedural blood loss was increased but overall transfusion rates remained unchanged. Our data show that IHD and CVVH may be regarded as equivalent approaches in critically ill patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure in this regard.