Citations

Introduction: Stroke-related mortality poses significant challenges in the US. Increased at-home deaths since COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes in the provision of end-of-life care. Question: What were the settings of stroke deaths in the US during COVID-19 pandemic? Methods: Decedent-level mortality data from death certificates in CDC repository were obtained for the year 2020 (pandemic) and 2019 (comparison). Demographic data include age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, and place of stroke death, including inpatient, outpatient/emergency room (ER), hospice/nursing facilities (H/NF), and at-home. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed demographic impact on stroke mortality by place-of-death, yielding odds ratios (OR) with significance threshold of p<0.05. Results: A total of 5,400 and 5,712 stroke-related deaths occurred in 2019 and 2020, respectively. During COVID-19, decedents >65 years were more likely to die in H/NF (OR 10.05, p<0.001) but less likely in outpatient/ER (OR 0.32, p<0.001) or at home (OR 0.57, p=0.007) compared to those <35 years. High education level did not significantly influence the place of death than having high school diploma or less (p>0.05). Males were more likely to die at home (OR 1.38, p<0.001) but less likely as inpatient (OR 0.79, p<0.001) than females. Hispanic decedents had a higher likelihood of inpatient death (OR 1.22, p=0.041) but less likely to die in H/NF (OR 0.55, p<0.001) compared to non-Hispanic decedents. Compared to White decedents, Black decedents were more likely to die in outpatient/ER (OR 1.44, p=0.018), while American Indian decedents were more likely to die as inpatient (OR 3.12, p=0.005). Asian/Pacific Islander decedents had a higher chance of inpatient death (OR 1.47, p=0.002) but a lower likelihood of dying in H/NF (OR 0.61, p=0.010). Married decedents were more likely than singles to die as inpatient (OR 1.37, p=0.001) or in outpatient/ER (OR 1.99, p<0.001), but less likely to die in H/NF (OR 0.61, p=0.002) or at home (OR 0.56, p<0.001). Conclusion: Our analysis revealed the influence of demographics on the settings of stroke fatalities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further investigation is needed to determine contributing factors.

Background Older adults with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome are less likely to undergo an invasive strategy compared with younger patients. Randomized controlled trials traditionally exclude older adults because of their high burden of geriatric conditions. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus medical management or a selective invasive (conservative) strategy for older patients (age≥75 years) with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome. Fixed effects meta‐analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and individual secondary end points of all‐cause death, cardiovascular death, MI, revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding. Nine studies with 2429 patients (invasive: 1228 versus control: 1201) with a mean follow‐up of 21 months were included. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a composite of death and MI (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54–0.83], P <0.001), MI (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.45–0.70], P <0.001) and subsequent revascularization (OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16–0.48], P <0.001). There was no difference in all‐cause death (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65–1.10], P =0.21), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63–1.15], P =0.30), stroke (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.38–1.47], P =0.39), or major bleeding (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.42–3.66], P =0.70). Conclusions In older patients ≥75 years old with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of a composite of death and MI, MI, and subsequent revascularization compared with a conservative strategy alone. Older adults with higher burden of geriatric conditions should be included in future trials to improve generalizability to this growing population.

ABSTRACT Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing cardiac imaging, including echocardiography. However, AI has scarce penetration in resource‐limited regions. The implementation of AI‐aided echocardiography (AIE) poses unique challenges and opportunities in resource‐limited areas. Some obvious advantages of AIE include aiding image acquisition, interpretation, and triaging patients based on severity. The challenges AIE faces in resource‐limited regions include a lack of data accessibility for model development, physician apprehension, and an outdated regulatory framework. Based on our early experience with AI, we believe AIE in resource‐limited regions will enhance health equity, improve access to the technology, and lead to cost savings. However, significant efforts are needed to realize these objectives.

TPS1122 Background: Treatment options for patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BC have improved with the development of novel targeted therapies including trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), an ADC directed against HER2 with a cytotoxic topoisomerase I inhibitor as a payload. Currently, there are limited treatment options for pts with HER2+ or HER2-low metastatic BC that has progressed on T-DXd. BB-1701 is an ADC consisting of a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 with eribulin (microtubule inhibitor) as a payload that is capable of exerting a bystander effect. A first-in-human dose-finding Study 101 of BB-1701 is ongoing. Here we describe Study 205, an open label, multicenter, phase 2 study of BB-1701 in pts with HER2+ or HER2-low unresectable or metastatic BC who have disease progression after treatment with T-DXd. Methods: Study 205 (NCT06188559) includes dose-optimization and dose-expansion parts for BB-1701. Eligible pts must have histologically confirmed HER2+ or HER2-low, unresectable or metastatic BC, with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1. Prior treatment must include 1–3 prior chemotherapy-based regimens for unresectable or metastatic BC, including T-DXd. The primary objectives of the dose-optimization part include determining the recommended dose (RD) and evaluating safety and tolerability of BB-1701. The RD will be assessed by randomly assigning ~50 pts into 1 of 3 dosing cohorts (1.6 mg/kg on day 1 Q3W, 0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 Q3W, and 1.2 mg/kg on day 1 Q3W; IV) in a 2:2:1 ratio. Randomization will be stratified by HER2 status (HER2+ vs. HER2-low) documented prior to T-DXd treatment. The dose-expansion part will enroll ~85 pts at RD; the primary objective includes evaluating the efficacy of BB-1701 at the RD. In both study parts, secondary objectives include assessment of additional efficacy measures (i.e., duration of response [DOR], progression free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], disease control rate [DCR], clinical benefit rate [CBR], and time to response [TTR]), and pharmacokinetics. Efficacy endpoints will be assessed per RECIST v1.1 by the investigator during the dose-optimization part or by Blinded Independent Central Review during the dose-expansion part. Safety assessments will consist of recording, monitoring, and grading of adverse events (AEs) based on CTCAE v5.0, AEs of special interest, and serious AEs. In both study parts, exploratory objectives will include evaluation of biomarkers of response to BB-1701 and BB-1701 immunogenicity; other efficacy measures (i.e., PFS on the next line of therapy) and population pharmacokinetics will be analyzed in the dose-expansion part only. Pt enrollment is currently open. Clinical trial information: NCT06188559 .

Introduction: Asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction is often underdiagnosed, leading to missed opportunities for treatment. In a recently completed pragmatic RCT, an AI algorithm performed on the ECGs ordered as part of routine practice increased early diagnosis of low EF. The current study aimed to understand whether the effectiveness of the AI algorithm integrated into routine care differed by the socioeconomic status of the patient. Methods: The main findings of the RCT were previously published. Clinicians in the intervention group had access to AI results (i.e., a positive or negative screening result, with positive results indicating a high likelihood of low EF). When a positive result was found, clinicians in the intervention group received an alert that encouraged them to order TTE if considered clinically appropriate. Clinicians in the control group did not have access or received alerts. Area deprivation index (ADI) was used to measure area-level social determinants of health. This study included 16,992 patients (control 8,225; intervention: 8,767) who had ECG performed for any indications between 8/5/2019 and 3/31/2020, no prior HF, and a valid address to derive ADI. The primary endpoint was a new diagnosis of EF≤50% within 3 months. Results: The mean age was 60.5±17.6 y. AI increased the diagnosis of low EF in the overall cohort (OR 1.42 [1.13, 1.78], p=0.01). The magnitude of benefit was greater in patients with higher socioeconomic status, e.g., living in an area that is less deprived (OR 1.88 [1.16, 3.05]), with higher median income, lower poverty rate, higher education level, better housing conditions, and higher proportion of white-collar workers, although the interaction was not statistically significant (Figure). Conclusions: AI enables early diagnosis of low EF and the magnitude of benefit might be numerically greater in patients with higher socioeconomic status, possibly due to variations in access to or referral for subsequent testing.

OBJECTIVE Preoperative differentiation of facial nerve schwannoma (FNS) from vestibular schwannoma (VS) can be challenging, and failure to differentiate between these two pathologies can result in potentially avoidable facial nerve injury. This study presents the combined experience of two high-volume centers in the management of intraoperatively diagnosed FNSs. The authors highlight clinical and imaging features that can distinguish FNS from VS and provide an algorithm to help manage intraoperatively diagnosed FNS. METHODS Operative records of 1484 presumed sporadic VS resections between January 2012 and December 2021 were reviewed, and patients with intraoperatively diagnosed FNSs were identified. Clinical data and preoperative imaging were retrospectively reviewed for features suggestive of FNS, and factors associated with good postoperative facial nerve function (House-Brackmann [HB] grade ≤ 2) were identified. A preoperative imaging protocol for suspected VS and recommendations for surgical decision-making following an intraoperative FNS diagnosis were created. RESULTS Nineteen patients (1.3%) with FNSs were identified. All patients had normal facial motor function preoperatively. In 12 patients (63%), preoperative imaging demonstrated no features suggestive of FNS, with the remainder showing subtle enhancement of the geniculate/labyrinthine facial segment, widening/erosion of the fallopian canal, or multiple tumor nodules in retrospect. Eleven (57.9%) of the 19 patients underwent a retrosigmoid craniotomy, and in the remaining patients, a translabyrinthine (n = 6) or transotic (n = 2) approach was used. Following FNS diagnosis, 6 (32%) of the tumors underwent gross-total resection (GTR) and cable nerve grafting, 6 (32%) underwent subtotal resection (STR) and bony decompression of the meatal facial nerve segment, and 7 (36%) underwent bony decompression only. All patients undergoing subtotal debulking or bony decompression exhibited normal postoperative facial function (HB grade I). At the last clinical follow-up, patients who underwent GTR with a facial nerve graft had HB grade III (3 of 6 patients) or IV facial function. Tumor recurrence/regrowth occurred in 3 patients (16%), all of whom had been treated with either bony decompression or STR. CONCLUSIONS Intraoperative diagnosis of an FNS during a presumed VS resection is rare, but its incidence can be reduced further by maintaining a high index of suspicion and undertaking further imaging in patients with atypical clinical or imaging features. If an intraoperative diagnosis does occur, conservative surgical management with bony decompression of the facial nerve only is recommended, unless there is significant mass effect on surrounding structures.