Griffeth, Elaine M.

ABSTRACTBackgroundEvolving trends in organ procurement and technological innovation prompted an investigation into recent trends, indications, and outcomes following combined heart–lung transplantation (HLTx).MethodsThe United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for all adult (≥18 years) HLTx performed between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2023. Patients with previous transplants were excluded. The primary endpoint was the effect of donor, recipient, and transplantation characteristics on 1‐ and 5‐year survival. Secondary analyses included a comparison of HLTx at high‐ and low‐volume centers, an assessment of HLTx following donation after circulatory death (DCD), and an evaluation of HLTx volume over time. Cox proportional‐hazards models were used to assess factors associated with mortality. Temporal trends were evaluated with linear regression.ResultsAfter exclusions, 319 patients were analyzed, of whom 5 (1.6%) were DCD. HLTx volume increased from 2013 to 2023 (p < 0.001). One‐ and 5‐year survival following HLTx was 84.0% and 59.5%, respectively. One‐year survival was higher for patients undergoing HLTx at a high‐volume center (88.3% vs. 77.9%; p = 0.012). After risk adjustment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support 72 h posttransplant and predischarge dialysis were associated with increased 1‐year mortality (HR = 3.19, 95% CI = 1.86–5.49 and HR = 3.47, 95% CI = 2.17–5.54, respectively) and 5‐year mortality (HR = 2.901, 95% CI = 1.679–5.011 and HR = 3.327, 95% CI = 2.085–5.311, respectively), but HLTx at a high‐volume center was not associated with either.ConclusionsHLTx volume has resurged, with DCD HLTx emerging as a viable procurement strategy. Factors associated with 1‐ and 5‐year survival may be used to guide postoperative management following HLTx.

Abstract Purpose Supervisors may be prone to implicit (unintentional) bias when granting procedural autonomy to trainees due to the subjectivity of autonomy decisions. The authors aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the differences in perceptions of procedural autonomy granted to physician trainees based on gender and/or race. Method MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched (search date: January 5, 2022) for studies reporting quantitative gender- or race-based differences in perceptions of procedural autonomy of physician trainees. Reviewers worked in duplicate for article selection and data abstraction. Primary measures of interest were self-reported and observer-rated procedural autonomy. Meta-analysis pooled differences in perceptions of procedural autonomy based on trainee gender. Results The search returned 2,714 articles, of which 16 were eligible for inclusion. These reported data for 6,109 trainees (median, 90 per study) and 2,763 supervisors (median, 54 per study). No studies investigated differences in perceptions of autonomy based on race. In meta-analysis of disparities between genders in autonomy ratings (positive number favoring female trainees), pooled standardized mean differences were −0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.19 to −0.04; P = .003; n = 10 studies) for trainee self-rated autonomy and −0.05 (95% CI, −0.11 to 0.01; P = .07; n = 9 studies) for supervisor ratings of autonomy. Conclusions Limited evidence suggests that female trainees perceived that they received less procedural autonomy than did males. Further research exploring the degree of gender- and race-based differences in procedural autonomy, and factors that influence these differences is warranted.

AbstractBackgroundRoutine defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) of transvenous implantable defibrillators (ICDs) has largely been in decline. In patients with non‐transvenous ICDs that utilize subcutaneous and pleural ICD leads, serial DFT testing can detect a significant number of failures. Data about the utility of follow‐up defibrillation safety margin testing (DSM) testing in pediatric patients and young adults with an epicardial ICD are lacking.MethodsPatients aged < 25 years old who underwent epicardial ICD placement at Mayo Clinic from 2014 to 2023 with at least one follow‐up DSM test were included. The patients were divided into a “routine” (R) and “clinically indicated” (CI) group based on the index of clinical concern. Inadequate DSM was defined as unsuccessful defibrillation at an output of less than 10 J below the maximum output of the device. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of follow‐up DSM testing.ResultsAn epicardial ICD system was placed in 122 patients. A total of 26 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent a total of 47 DSM follow up tests. Inadequate DSM occurred in 1/33 (3%) in the R group and 2/14 (14%) DSM tests in the CI group. The median follow‐up period was 54 and 36 months for the R and CI group, respectively.ConclusionsOur data suggest that epicardial ICDs are reliable and routine follow‐up DSM testing may not be necessary for all patients. DSM testing should be performed in individuals with epicardial ICD systems when there is clinical concern about lead or coil performance.

Objectives Patient safety incident reporting in our institution’s intensive care units (ICUs) had fallen 30% below national benchmarks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Underreporting diminishes awareness of risks and precludes organizational learning from near misses. We aimed to increase the ICU number of patient safety incident reports by 30% from 27 to 35 reports/1000 patient-days without negatively impacting culture of safety as measured by patient-care staff surveys. Methods Single-institution prospective interventional study with 9 ICUs receiving a multifaceted intervention developed using quality improvement methodology during February–April 2022. Study intervention involved creation of patient safety peer-leadership role, feedback process, interactive dashboards for patient safety data, and education resources accessible via quick response codes. Primary outcome was patient safety incident reports/1000 patient-days. Intensive care unit patient-care staff culture of safety was assessed with surveys. Results Intensive care unit patient safety incident reporting increased by 48% after intervention (40 versus 27 reports/1000 patient-days [P = 0.136]). Near misses were the most common incident report. Intensive care unit patient-care staff ratings of patient safety did not change; 80% rated patient safety as good or better after intervention versus 78% at baseline (P = 0.465). However, significant improvement was observed for subcomponents related to learning culture and support for staff involved in patient safety incidents. Most reports (>80%) were submitted by nurses. Conclusions This multifaceted quality improvement intervention increased patient safety incident reporting in the ICUs. Increases in ratings of learning culture and support for staff underline the importance of a well-functioning patient safety incident reporting system in an institutional culture of safety.

Background Lead performance is suboptimal in young patients and a main cause of device system failure. Our objective was to assess early and midterm outcomes after epicardial device implantation in a contemporary pediatric cohort. Methods A total of 116 consecutive pediatric patients underwent 137 epicardial device implantations from 2010 to 2019. Forty pacemakers and 97 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) were implanted. Lead failure was defined as leads repaired, replaced, or abandoned due to fracture, dislodgement, or dysfunction. Freedom from device system failure was determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results Mean age at implantation was 10 ± 5 years, 46 (34%) were younger than 8 years old, 41 (30%) had prior cardiac surgery, and 38 (28%) had prior devices. Main indications were acquired heart block (17/40 [43%]), sinus node dysfunction (14/40 [35%]), and congenital heart block (7/40 [18%]) for pacemakers, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (46/97 [47%]), long QT syndrome (31/97 [32%]), and ventricular arrhythmia (17/97 [18%]) for ICDs. There were no early deaths. Three-year freedom from device system failure was 80% (95% CI 73%, 88%) for all patients and 88% (95% CI 79%, 99%) for patients <8 years old. Device system failure causes included lead fracture (20/34 [59%]), lead dysfunction (5/34 [15%]), lead dislodgement (5/34 [15%]), infection (3/34 [9%]), and pericarditis (1/34 [3%]). Reintervention was required in 26/34 (76%) device system failures. Conclusions Epicardial device implantation is safe, shows acceptable midterm outcomes in children, and is an effective option in patients younger than 8 years old. Close device surveillance continues to be essential to detect lead failure early and ensure timely reintervention.