Faculty Bibliography

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term 'vulnerable patient' may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document will focus on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term 'vulnerable patient' may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the diagnosis and therapy of oral allergy syndrome (OAS; also known as pollen-food allergy syndrome), a disorder caused by IgE antibody-mediated reactions to homologous proteins in pollens and fruits and vegetables. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine how practicing allergists define and treat OAS. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to 226 randomly selected US allergists from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology directory. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two (54%) returned surveys were analyzed. Median estimates of the prevalence of OAS among the patients with pollen allergy were 5% among children and 8% among adults. Twenty percent of allergists reported that some patients progressed to systemic symptoms. Fifty-three percent of allergists recommended complete avoidance of causal foods to all patients, whereas 9% did not advocate any restrictions. Thirty percent never prescribed epinephrine for OAS, 3% always did, and the remainder did so on the basis of symptoms. When presented with clinical cases, 20% diagnosed systemic reactions to peach as OAS, 13% believed peanut could cause OAS, and 25% did not prescribe epinephrine for peanut allergy manifested by oral symptoms. CONCLUSION: Allergists' estimates of the prevalence of OAS in patients with pollen allergy (5%-8%) are lower than the prevalence reported (approximately 50%) in the published studies of these patients, perhaps reflecting a low index of suspicion, underdiagnosis, or both. The wide range of responses regarding diagnosis and management indicates the need for a better definition for the disorder and standard therapeutic guidelines. Discrepancies might be related to the term OAS, and therefore use of the more specific term "pollen-food allergy syndrome" is suggested.

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural experiences are in increasing demand by both graduate and undergraduate medical students, yet the benefits of these experiences are not clearly established. METHOD: A review of the literature was conducted to identify articles on the outcomes of cross-cultural experiences. Themes were identified and categorized into domains. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were found; 27 articles used qualitative methods, nine used quantitative methods, and six used both. Most (24) were from the nursing literature, 18 were from the medical literature. All studies reported positive outcomes along four domains: students' professional development, students' personal development, medical school benefits, and host population benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Studies reviewed were primarily case controlled or case series. Future research is needed that more clearly defines outcome measures and uses more rigorous methods. Although results suggest positive outcomes in all domains, additional research is needed before cross-cultural rotations can be supported based on evidence.

The New York University School of Medicine has a rich tradition of cultivating programs in medical humanities and professionalism. They are drawn from the departments, centers, students, and faculty in the School of Medicine, have linkages throughout the university, and are interwoven into the fabric and culture of the institution. Some are centrally based in the School of Medicine's deans' office, and others are located in individual departments and receive support from the dean's office. This article describes representative programs for medical students and faculty. Curricular initiatives, the fundamental components of medical students' learning, include a course entitled 'The Physician, Patient, and Society,' a clerkship essay in the Medicine Clerkship, an opportunity for reflection during the medicine clerkship, and a medical humanities elective. In 2002, the Professionalism Initiative was launched to enhance and reflect the values of the medical profession. Its curriculum consists of a series of events that coordinate, particularly, with existing elements of the first-year curriculum (e.g., orientation week, a session during anatomy, a self-assessment workshop, and a peer-assessment workshop). The Master Scholars Program is a group of five, theme-based master societies consisting of faculty and students who share common interests around the society's themes. Programs developed for the societies include colloquia, faculty-led seminars, a mandatory student-mentoring program, and visiting scholars. Finally, the authors describe three high-quality literary publications created at New York University School of Medicine. Each of the initiatives undergoes regular critical examination and reflection that drive future planning

OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine whether physician recommendations for cardiac revascularization vary according to patient race. METHODS: We studied patients scheduled for coronary angiography at 2 hospitals, one public and one private, between November 1997 and June 1999. Cardiologists were interviewed regarding their recommendations for cardiac resvacularization. RESULTS: African American patients were less likely than Whites to be recommended for revascularization at the public hospital (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12, 0.77) but not at the private hospital (adjusted OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 0.69, 4.14). CONCLUSIONS: Physician recommendations for cardiac revascularization vary by patient race. Further studies are needed to examine physician bias as a factor in racial disparities in cardiac care and outcomes