Jani, Chinmay

1564 Background: Inadequate follow-up of suspicious lung nodules can result in a delay in diagnosis and potential progression to advanced staged lung cancer. A multidisciplinary lung nodule program entitled "Nodule Net" was implemented in 2017 to provide a safety net, increase the rate of follow-up, streamline management. The program consisted of a multidisciplinary team with EMR notification by the radiologist to a centralized nurse navigator for inclusion in a follow-up database, outreach with reminders to the primary care provider if follow-up was not completed, and referral for management where appropriate. In this study, we sought to evaluate program effectiveness in tracking and rate of follow-up imaging of suspicious pulmonary nodules. Methods: 2,398 chest CT scans were reviewed between January and May 2018 for the presence of a lung nodule that required follow-up. Nodules known to be inflammatory or associated with a metastatic malignancy were excluded. Baseline demographics, medical history, primary care affiliation, type of imaging scan, nodule characteristics, and presence and specifics of follow-up recommendations were collected. For reports that did not include a follow-up recommendation, Fleischner’s recommendations were applied or an independent pulmonologist’s review was completed. The rate of follow-up imaging was recorded and compared with historical rates prior to Nodule Net implementation. Prevalence ratios were generated for each comparison. Results: 1,367 (57%) reported lung nodules. Recommendations for follow-up imaging were recorded in 632 (46.2%), and 523 (82.8%) of these were reported to the program navigator. The rate of follow-up completion of those referred to the program was significantly higher [408 (78%)] than standard of care prior to program implementation [442/1202 (36.8%), (2.90, 95% CI: 2.65-3.18)]. Out of 408 patients who completed follow-up, nodule net outreach was required in 116 (28.4%). Of these 116, malignancy was identified in 4/116 (3.4%). Increased nodule size requiring referral was identified in 17 (14.7%). Out of 109 who were not transmitted to the program navigator and not present in the database, 57 (52.3%) had completed the recommended follow-up compared with 78% among those referred (1.49, 95% CI:1.23-1.79). Conclusions: Management of lung nodules is a complex process with poor follow-up completion reported in prior studies (29%-33%). Implementation of a multidisciplinary lung nodule care program for tracking lung nodules led to a significant increase in completion of recommended follow-up imaging. Developing a comprehensive lung nodule management program using software and navigation may further enhance detection, reduce human errors, augment the necessary follow-up for suspicious lung nodules, and ultimately the prevalence of advanced stage lung cancer.

The impact of coronavirus disease, 2019 (COVID-19), has been profound. Though COVID-19 primarily affects the respiratory system, it has also been associated with a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) manifestations portending extremely poor prognosis. The principal hypothesis for CV involvement is through direct myocardial infection and systemic inflammation. We conducted a systematic review of the current literature to provide a foundation for understanding the CV manifestations and outcomes of COVID-19. PubMed and EMBASE databases were electronically searched from the inception of the databases through 27 April 2020. A second literature review was conducted to include major trials and guidelines that were published after the initial search but before submission. The inclusion criteria for studies to be eligible were case reports, case series, and observation studies reporting CV outcomes among patients with COVID-19 infection. This review of the current COVID-19 disease and CV outcomes literature revealed a myriad of CV manifestations with potential avenues for treatment and prevention. Future studies are required to understand on a more mechanistic level the effect of COVID-19 on the myocardium and thus provide avenues to improve mortality and morbidity.

Abstract Background The effectiveness of catheter ablation as a management modality amongst patients with coexisting atrial flutter (AFL) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is scarcely studied. Methods Appropriate ICD 10 codes were applied to the 2016 and 2017 National Readmission Database (NRD) to isolate patients having coexistent AFL and HFrEF including who had undergone an ablation. All-cause mortality at the end of 1 year was used as a primary outcome. Readmission due to AFL, heart failure (HF) and other causes were secondary outcomes. The hazard ratios were generated using Cox regression analysis while the time to event analysis was demonstrated with the Kaplan Meier curves. Results Out of a total of 9966 patients with AFL and HFrEF, 1980 (24.79%) patients underwent catheter ablation. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality (2.8% vs. 4.6%, HR: 0.610, 95% CI: 0.460–0.808, p=0.001) at the end of 1 year was significantly lower. Significant difference was also noted amongst two groups when it came to secondary outcomes such as readmissions due to AFL (1.6% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.247, 95% CI: 0.173–0.354, p<0.001), HF (8.2% vs. 11.4%, HR: 0.693, 95% CI: 0.587–0.819, p<0.001) and other causes (29.4% vs. 37.1%, HR: 0.735, 95% CI: 0.673–0.804, p<0.001) Conclusion Ablative intervention amongst AFL patients with concomitant HFrEF showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality. It also leads to significant reductions in readmissions due to AFL, HF and other causes at the end of one year. Outcomes of AFL and HFrEF Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Abstract Background The availability of real-world data regarding the impact of the catheter ablation in patients with concomitant atrial flutter (AFL) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is limited. Methods 2016 and 2017 National Readmission Database (NRD) was subjected to appropriate ICD-10 codes to identify and extract patients having coexistent atrial flutter and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction including who had undergone ablation. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was utilized as the primary outcome while readmissions due to AFL, heart failure (HF) and any other causes were designated as secondary outcomes. Kaplan Meier curves were used for a time to event analysis. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to generate hazard ratios. Results Out of a total 6099 patients with AFL and HFpEF, 906 (14.85%) underwent catheter ablation. At 1 year all cause mortality (3%, vs. 4.4%, HR: 0.661, 95% CI: 0.444–0.985, p=0.042) and readmissions due to AFL (2.3% vs. 5.3%, HR: 0.424, 95% CI: 0.272–0.661, p<0.001) were significantly less among ablation group. Readmission due to HF (9.3% vs. 9.7%, HR: 0.938, 95% CI: 0.745–1.182, p=0.587) and other causes (37% vs.40.3%, HR: 0.926, 95% CI: 0.825–1.040, p=0.193) did not show any significant difference in outcomes at the end of 1 year. Conclusion The utilization of catheter ablation amongst AFL patients with concomitant HFpEF showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and readmission due to AFL. However, it did not show any significant changes in readmissions due to HF or other causes at the end of one year. Outcomes of AFL and HFpEF Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None