Incidence and correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice. 4-year results from a large 2-institutional cohort study

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the risk of late stent thrombosis (ST) during long-term follow-up beyond 3 years, searched for predictors, and assessed the impact of ST on overall mortality. BACKGROUND: Late ST was reported to occur at an annual rate of 0.6% up to 3 years after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. METHODS: A total of 8,146 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) (n=3,823) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (n=4,323) and were followed up to 4 years after stent implantation. Dual antiplatelet treatment was prescribed for 6 to 12 months. RESULTS: Definite ST occurred in 192 of 8,146 patients with an incidence density of 1.0/100 patient-years and a cumulative incidence of 3.3% at 4 years. The hazard of ST continued at a steady rate of 0.53% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44 to 0.64) between 30 days and 4 years. Diabetes was an independent predictor of early ST (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.28), and acute coronary syndrome (HR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.51), younger age (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99), and use of PES (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.56) were independent predictors of late ST. Rates of death and myocardial infarction at 4 years were 10.6% and 4.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Late ST occurs steadily at an annual rate of 0.4% to 0.6% for up to 4 years. Diabetes is an independent predictor of early ST, whereas acute coronary syndrome, younger age, and PES implantation are associated with late ST.

Subverting the subject position : toward a new discourse about students as writers and engineering students as technical communicators

There is ample evidence of a longstanding and pervasive discourse positioning students, and engineering students in particular, as “bad writers.” This is a discourse perpetuated within the academy, the workplace, and society at large. But what are the effects of this discourse? Are students aware faculty harbor the belief students can’t write? Is student writing or confidence in their writing influenced by the negative tone of the discourse? This dissertation attempts to demonstrate that a discourse disparaging student writing exists among faculty, across disciplines, but particularly within the engineering disciplines, as well as to identify the reach of that discourse through the deployment of two attitudinal surveys—one for students, across disciplines, at Michigan Technological University and one for faculty, across disciplines at universities and colleges both within the United States and internationally. This project seeks to contribute to a more accurate and productive discourse about engineering students, and more broadly, all students, as writers—one that focuses on competencies rather than incompetence, one that encourages faculty to find new ways to characterize students as writers, and encourages faculty to recognize the limits of the utility of practitioner lore.