Piccirillo, Jay F.

ABSTRACT Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT, Osler‐Weber‐Rendu disease) is the second most common inherited bleeding disorder worldwide, affecting approximately 1 in 5000 people. Development of disease‐modifying and efficacious hemostatic agents to treat HHT has finally begun after decades without such medical therapies. However, the lack of consensus on standardized severity definitions, outcome criteria, and terminology remains a major obstacle to clinical investigation and therapeutic development in HHT. Additionally, with the ongoing repurposing of antiangiogenic agents and emerging development of novel HHT‐specific therapies, comparative clinical trials are expected in the future. Therefore, to end the problematic heterogeneity hindering these efforts, the Global Research and Medical Advisory Board (GRMAB) of the Cure HHT Foundation, an international group of recognized HHT experts, convened a conference of expert HHT clinician‐investigators from within GRMAB as well as invited external experts in HHT and bleeding disorders generally, patients with HHT, and patient advocates to define standard terminology and definitions for outcomes and severity classification for bleeding and anemia in HHT. These criteria and definitions should be adopted by regulators, investigators, and the pharmaceutical industry in the development and performance of interventional clinical trials and cohort studies to allow improved comparability between clinical trials, facilitate communication between clinicians and investigators, improve therapeutic guideline development, and provide a standardized framework for regulatory agencies. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria Evidence for this report was systematically identified and evaluated utilizing two search strategies in Ovid MEDLINE, described in full detail in the Appendix, pp.4–13. The searches were conducted on January 7, 2025. The titles and abstracts of each record were reviewed, and the inclusion criteria were applied to all search results to identify full text articles to be retrieved for further review. All retrieved full texts were then reviewed to reach a final determination if a study met the inclusion criteria. Included references were then compiled into evidence tables, which were then utilized by the International Consensus Report Working Group throughout the development of report recommendations.

Mobile health (mHealth) technology has assumed a pervasive role in healthcare and society. By capturing real-time features related to spine health, mHealth assessments have the potential to transform multiple aspects of spine care. Yet mHealth applications may not be familiar to many spine surgeons and other spine clinicians. Consequently, the objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the technology, analytical considerations, and applications of mHealth tools for evaluating spine surgery patients. Reflecting their near-ubiquitous role in society, smartphones are the most commonly available form of mHealth technology and can provide measures related to activity, sleep, and even social interaction. By comparison, wearable devices can provide more detailed mobility and physiological measures, although capabilities vary substantially by device. To date, mHealth evaluations in spine surgery patients have focused on the use of activity measures, particularly step counts, in an attempt to objectively quantify spine health. However, the correlation between step counts and patient-reported disease severity is inconsistent, and further work is needed to define the mobility metrics most relevant to spine surgery patients. mHealth assessments may also support a variety of other applications that have been studied less frequently, including those that prevent postoperative complications, predict surgical outcomes, and serve as motivational aids to patients. These areas represent key opportunities for future investigations. To maximize the potential of mHealth evaluations, several barriers must be overcome, including technical challenges, privacy and regulatory concerns, and questions related to reimbursement. Despite those obstacles, mHealth technology has the potential to transform many aspects of spine surgery research and practice, and its applications will only continue to grow in the years ahead.

ABSTRACT Background Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA). Methods Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence‐based review (EBR), or evidence‐based review with recommendations (EBR‐R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA‐associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated. Conclusion This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence‐based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

Background: Cranial dural arteriovenous fistulas with cortical venous drainage are rare lesions that can present with hemorrhage. A high rate of rebleeding in the early period following hemorrhage has been reported, but published long-term rates are much lower. No study has examined how risk of rebleeding changes over time. Our objective was to quantify the relative incidence of rebleeding in the early and later periods following hemorrhage. Methods: Patients with dural arteriovenous fistula and cortical venous drainage presenting with hemorrhage were identified from the multinational CONDOR (Consortium for Dural Fistula Outcomes Research) database. Natural history follow-up was defined as time from hemorrhage to first treatment, rebleed, or last follow-up. Rebleeding in the first 2 weeks and first year were compared using incidence rate ratio and difference. Results: Of 1077 patients, 250 met the inclusion criteria and had 95 cumulative person-years natural history follow-up. The overall annualized rebleed rate was 7.3% (95% CI, 3.2–14.5). The incidence rate of rebleeding in the first 2 weeks was 0.0011 per person-day; an early rebleed risk of 1.6% in the first 14 days (95% CI, 0.3–5.1). For the remainder of the first year, the incidence rate was 0.00015 per person-day; a rebleed rate of 5.3% (CI, 1.7–12.4) over 1 year. The incidence rate ratio was 7.3 (95% CI, 1.4–37.7; P , 0.026). Conclusions: The risk of rebleeding of a dural arteriovenous fistula with cortical venous drainage presenting with hemorrhage is increased in the first 2 weeks justifying early treatment. However, the magnitude of this increase may be considerably lower than previously thought. Treatment within 5 days was associated with a low rate of rebleeding and appears an appropriate timeframe.

OBJECTIVE There is a reported elevated risk of cerebral aneurysms in patients with intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs). However, the natural history, rate of spontaneous regression, and ideal treatment regimen are not well characterized. In this study, the authors aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with dAVFs and intracranial aneurysms and propose a classification system. METHODS The Consortium for Dural Arteriovenous Fistula Outcomes Research (CONDOR) database from 12 centers was retrospectively reviewed. Analysis was performed to compare dAVF patients with (dAVF+ cohort) and without (dAVF-only cohort) concomitant aneurysm. Aneurysms were categorized based on location as a dAVF flow-related aneurysm (FRA) or a dAVF non–flow-related aneurysm (NFRA), with further classification as extra- or intradural. Patients with traumatic pseudoaneurysms or aneurysms with associated arteriovenous malformations were excluded from the analysis. Patient demographics, dAVF anatomical information, aneurysm information, and follow-up data were collected. RESULTS Of the 1077 patients, 1043 were eligible for inclusion, comprising 978 (93.8%) and 65 (6.2%) in the dAVF-only and dAVF+ cohorts, respectively. There were 96 aneurysms in the dAVF+ cohort; 10 patients (1%) harbored 12 FRAs, and 55 patients (5.3%) harbored 84 NFRAs. Dural AVF+ patients had higher rates of smoking (59.3% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001) and illicit drug use (5.8% vs 1.5%, p = 0.02). Sixteen dAVF+ patients (24.6%) presented with aneurysm rupture, which represented 16.7% of the total aneurysms. One patient (1.5%) had aneurysm rupture during follow-up. Patients with dAVF+ were more likely to have a dAVF located in nonconventional locations, less likely to have arterial supply to the dAVF from external carotid artery branches, and more likely to have supply from pial branches. Rates of cortical venous drainage and Borden type distributions were comparable between cohorts. A minority (12.5%) of aneurysms were FRAs. The majority of the aneurysms underwent treatment via either endovascular (36.5%) or microsurgical (15.6%) technique. A small proportion of aneurysms managed conservatively either with or without dAVF treatment spontaneously regressed (6.2%). CONCLUSIONS Patients with dAVF have a similar risk of harboring a concomitant intracranial aneurysm unrelated to the dAVF (5.3%) compared with the general population (approximately 2%–5%) and a rare risk (0.9%) of harboring an FRA. Only 50% of FRAs are intradural. Dural AVF+ patients have differences in dAVF angioarchitecture. A subset of dAVF+ patients harbor FRAs that may regress after dAVF treatment.

Abstract BACKGROUND Low-grade intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVF) have a benign natural history in the majority of cases. The benefit from treatment of these lesions is controversial. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of observation versus intervention for low-grade dAVFs. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed dAVF patients from institutions participating in the CONsortium for Dural arteriovenous fistula Outcomes Research (CONDOR). Patients with low-grade (Borden type I) dAVFs were included and categorized into intervention or observation cohorts. The intervention and observation cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at final follow-up. Secondary outcomes were excellent (mRS 0-1) and good (mRS 0-2) outcomes, symptomatic improvement, mortality, and obliteration at final follow-up. RESULTS The intervention and observation cohorts comprised 230 and 125 patients, respectively. We found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 unmatched cohorts at last follow-up (mean duration 36 mo), except obliteration rate was higher in the intervention cohort (78.5% vs 24.1%, P < .001). The matched intervention and observation cohorts each comprised 78 patients. We also found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the matched cohorts except obliteration was also more likely in the matched intervention cohort ( P < .001). Procedural complication rates in the unmatched and matched intervention cohorts were 15.4% and 19.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION Intervention for low-grade intracranial dAVFs achieves superior obliteration rates compared to conservative management, but it fails to improve neurological or functional outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine treatment of low-grade dAVFs.