Lim, Elisabeth S.

Background. The Banff classification scheme provides a framework for interpreting transplant kidney biopsies and has undergone various updates in the past 2 decades especially related to antibody-mediated rejection. The clinical significance of early glomerulitis seen within 4 mo on protocol biopsies has received limited attention. We hypothesized that early glomerulitis seen on protocol biopsies will lead to significant adverse outcomes as assessed by histopathology and allograft outcome. Methods. A single-center retrospective study of a cohort of patients who underwent protocol biopsies within 4 mo after transplantation with timely follow-up protocol biopsies were assessed. Patients with recurrent glomerulonephritis were excluded. Results. We calculated glomerulitis (g) scores for 2212 biopsy specimens and identified 186 patients with glomerulitis (g > 0) and 2026 patients without glomerulitis (g = 0). The progression to chronic transplant glomerulopathy at 1 and 2 y was higher in patients with g > 0 as compared with g = 0 (year 1, 10.7% versus 2.3% [P < 0.001]‚ respectively; year 2, 17.2% versus 4.3% [P < 0.001], respectively) with no difference in other chronic lesions. The death-censored graft failure rate was higher in patients with g > 0 as compared with g = 0 (hazard ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.07-2.65]; P = 0.02). We did not find any difference in outcomes in glomerulitis group based on donor-specific antibody. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that early glomerulitis (seen within 4 mo after transplantation) may lead to clinically significant long-term changes and thus could be a target for early intervention therapies.

Abstract Objective To compare the artificial intelligence‐enabled electrocardiogram (AI‐ECG) atrial fibrillation (AF) prediction model output in patients with migraine with aura (MwA) and migraine without aura (MwoA). Background MwA is associated with an approximately twofold risk of ischemic stroke. Longitudinal cohort studies showed that patients with MwA have a higher incidence of developing AF compared to those with MwoA. The Mayo Clinic Cardiology team developed an AI‐ECG algorithm that calculates the probability of concurrent paroxysmal or impending AF in ECGs with normal sinus rhythm (NSR). Methods Adult patients with an MwA or MwoA diagnosis and at least one NSR ECG within the past 20 years at Mayo Clinic were identified. Patients with an ECG‐confirmed diagnosis of AF were excluded. For each patient, the ECG with the highest AF prediction model output was used as the index ECG. Comparisons between MwA and MwoA were conducted in the overall group (including men and women of all ages), women only, and men only in each age range (18 to <35, 35 to <55, 55 to <75, ≥75 years), and adjusted for age, sex, and six common vascular comorbidities that increase risk for AF. Results The final analysis of our cross‐sectional study included 40,002 patients (17,840 with MwA, 22,162 with MwoA). The mean (SD) age at the index ECG was 48.2 (16.0) years for MwA and 45.9 (15.0) years for MwoA ( p < 0.001). The AF prediction model output was significantly higher in the MwA group compared to MwoA (mean [SD] 7.3% [15.0%] vs. 5.6% [12.4%], mean difference [95% CI] 1.7% [1.5%, 2.0%], p < 0.001). After adjusting for vascular comorbidities, the difference between MwA and MwoA remained significant in the overall group (least square means of difference [95% CI] 0.7% [0.4%, 0.9%], p < 0.001), 18 to <35 (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%], p = 0.022), and 35 to <55 (0.5% [0.2%, 0.8%], p < 0.001), women of all ages (0.6% [0.3%, 0.8%], p < 0.001), men of all ages (1.0% [0.4%, 1.6%], p = 0.002), women 35 to <55 (0.6% [0.3%, 0.9%], p < 0.001), and men 18 to <35 (1.2% [0.3%, 2.1%], p = 0.008). Conclusions Utilizing a novel AI‐ECG algorithm on a large group of patients, we demonstrated that patients with MwA have a significantly higher AF prediction model output, implying a higher probability of concurrent paroxysmal or impending AF, compared to MwoA in both women and men. Our results suggest that MwA is an independent risk factor for AF, especially in patients <55 years old, and that AF‐mediated cardioembolism may play a role in the migraine–stroke association for some patients.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) are rapidly replacing conventional troponin assays with high-sensitivity troponin tests. We sought to evaluate emergency physician utilization of troponin tests before and after high-sensitivity troponin introduction in our ED. Methods: We retrospectively examined 9,477 ED encounters, identifying the percentage in which physicians ordered a serum troponin both before and after our institution adopted a high-sensitivity troponin test. Results: After introduction of high-sensitivity troponin testing, the percentage of ED encountersin which physicians ordered troponin studies decreased (28.3% before vs 22% after; P <.001),with the drop most pronounced in admitted patients (decrease of 10.9% [95% confidenceinterval [CI]: 7.3%- 14.5%] in admitted patients vs decrease of 3.6% [95% CI: 1.7%- 5.4%]in discharged patients; P<.001) Conclusion: Introduction of high-sensitivity troponin testing was associated with a decrease in troponin ordering. While the reasons for this are unclear, it is possible that physicians became more selective in their ordering behavior because of the lower specificity of high-sensitivity troponin.

AbstractBackgroundA new trend includes taking a dedicated year away from medical school to complete a research fellowship. There is minimal data on the benefit of a gap year. We aimed to identify if a gap year makes a dermatology applicant more successful in The Match.MethodsDermatology applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic Arizona for the 2018–2019 application cycle and Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida for the 2019–2020 application cycle were surveyed.ResultsIn total, 291 dermatology applicants completed the initial survey, and 236 completed the follow‐up survey. Ninety applicants took a gap year, 198 applicants did not. There was no significant difference in match rates. When comparing match rates at top dermatology residency programs, 40.6% of gap‐year applicants matched to these residencies versus 19.0% of no gap‐year applicants (P < 0.01).ConclusionApplicants should weigh the opportunity costs before pursuing research gap years as they may not be universally helpful. Applicants who want to match at a top dermatology program may benefit from a research gap year. This data may have limited generalizability outside of the United States.

Abstract Approximately 5 to 15% of patients with pulmonary coccidioidomycosis subsequently develop pulmonary cavities. These cavities may resolve spontaneously over a number of years; however, some cavities never close, and a small proportion causes complications such as hemorrhage, pneumothorax or empyema. The impact of azole antifungal treatment on coccidioidal cavities has not been studied. Because azoles are a common treatment for symptomatic pulmonary coccidioidomycosis, we aimed to assess the impact of azole therapy on cavity closure. From January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2014, we retrospectively identified 313 patients with cavitary coccidioidomycosis and excluded 42 who had the cavity removed surgically, leaving 271 data sets available for study. Of the 271 patients, 221 (81.5%) received azole therapy during 5-year follow-up; 50 patients did not receive antifungal treatment. Among the 271 patients, cavities closed in 38 (14.0%). Statistical modeling showed that cavities were more likely to close in patients in the treated group than in the nontreated group (hazard ratio, 2.14 [95% CI: 1.45–5.66]). Cavities were less likely to close in active smokers than nonsmokers (11/41 [26.8%] vs 97/182 [53.3%]; P = 0.002) or in persons with than without diabetes (27/74 [36.5%] vs 81/149 [54.4%]; P = 0.01).We did not find an association between cavity size and closure. Our findings provide rationale for further study of treatment protocols in this subset of patients with coccidioidomycosis. Lay Summary Coccidioidomycosis, known as valley fever, is a fungal infection that infrequently causes cavities to form in the lungs, which potentially results in long-term lung symptoms. We learned that cavities closed more often in persons who received antifungal drugs, but most cavities never closed completely.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. Conclusion: In this pilot study, the low-volume colon preparation Prepopik® may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.