Citations

AbstractElectronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) can improve care for people with cancer, but effectiveness hinges on well-supported integration in clinical settings.We evaluated clinician use of specific clinical decision support (CDS) tools in the electronic health record (EHR) designed to facilitate timely, clinically appropriate responses to ePROM scores for six symptoms commonly experienced by cancer patients.The parent pragmatic trial, which took place at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, United States) and its affiliated community health care system between March 2019 and January 2023, evaluated the population-level effectiveness and implementation of an ePROM surveillance and EHR-facilitated collaborative care symptom management intervention. The present evaluation used a case study approach with four data sources: (1) clinician interactions with CDS tools abstracted from the EHR; (2) clinician notes identified with an institution-specific textual search tool; (3) qualitative interviews and group discussions with care teams; and (4) administrative records reviewed to identify training and outreach to care teams.EHR metrics showed very low adoption of CDS tools including alerts and symptom-specific order sets, despite educational outreach and information technology support provided to clinical care teams. Qualitative findings revealed that CDS use was not easy to integrate into busy clinical workflows and highlighted clinician perceptions that the collaborative care intervention provided additional patient support that reduced clinicians' need to utilize CDS tools. They also highlight the importance of contextual factors, including institutional priorities and EHR changes.This pragmatic clinical trial case study found limited adoption of EHR CDS tools that had been developed to increase clinicians' awareness of and responses to ePROM data. Findings suggest the need to align clinician and organizational implementation strategies, simplify CDS tools to fit practice expectations, and identify and address contextual factors that could undercut strategies like education and peer support. This may be especially important for teams who aim to iteratively evaluate and refine CDS and implementation strategies for multicomponent interventions or introduce new strategies that are responsive to barriers while maintaining scalability.

Abstract Background and Aims The TRISCEND II trial demonstrated superior clinical benefits for patients with ≥severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) treated with the EVOQUE transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) system plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone. This work reports 1-year and 18-month outcomes in patients stratified by baseline TR severity. Methods The multicentre, prospective TRISCEND II trial enrolled 400 patients with symptomatic, ≥severe TR, and randomized 2:1 to TTVR (n = 267) or control (n = 133). In a post hoc analysis, patients were stratified into severe TR (n = 172) and massive/torrential TR (n = 220) cohorts. Clinical and quality-of-life outcomes were reported at 1 year, with Kaplan–Meier estimates for all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization assessed at 18 months. Study oversight included an independent echocardiographic core laboratory, clinical events committee, and data safety monitoring board. Results One year after TTVR, TR was ≤mild in 95.2% of severe TR and 95.3% of massive/torrential TR patients. The primary safety and effectiveness endpoint (win ratio) favoured TTVR over control regardless of baseline TR severity: severe {1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 2.43]} and massive/torrential [2.20 (1.55, 3.14)]. At 18 months, TTVR patients had similar mortality to controls [rate difference: severe 0.2% (−11.6, 11.9), massive/torrential −5.8% (−17.6, 6.0)], whereas HF hospitalization rates favoured TTVR in the massive/torrential cohort [vs control, severe 9.8% (−3.0, 22.7), massive/torrential -15.2% (−28.9, −1.5)]. Conclusions Patients with ≥severe TR benefit from TTVR, experiencing improvements in TR severity, functional capacity, and quality of life regardless of baseline TR severity, with a signal for greater benefit in patients with more advanced disease.

AbstractInterruptive alerts can negatively impact clinical workflows and contribute to alert fatigue, provider frustration, and burnout. Given that interruptive alert overriding is a heterogeneous and recurring phenomenon, occurring across different organizational contexts with varying characteristics and circumstances, we hypothesize a pragmatic approach with multimodal interventions to address malfunctioning alert populations and maintain those contributing to better patient care.This study aimed to develop a systematic approach to screen, identify, and correct malfunctioning interruptive alerts within a tertiary healthcare system.We performed screening by assessing the alert population, exploring available resources, and defining alert population inclusion and exclusion criteria. We identified interruptive alerts and then conducted an exploratory analysis. We shared insights from discussions with our expert panel to validate our findings and find gaps in current alert monitoring. We then performed focus groups and interviews as part of a root cause analysis. To address the findings of these investigations, we prioritized which alerts to improve, evaluated solutions, and recommended steps to improve our governance structure.We developed an approach to assess around 1,500 unique alerts in a tertiary center from January to June 2023. We introduced two approaches to visually analyze alert populations: alert-focused analysis and people- and systems-focused analysis. We utilized an expert panel to further enhance the power and speed of alert evaluation and then investigated one emerging alert with focus groups, identifying root causes for its malfunction. This alert demonstrated how enterprise practice changes, coupled with design and cultural issues, can trigger significant alert malfunctions.A multi-modal intervention approach is needed to evaluate interruptive alerts and act quickly on findings. Utilizing both analytical and nonanalytical methods can work in synergy to facilitate this framework. Such approaches may reduce time and be valuable tools for optimally allocating resources to tackle institutional alert challenges.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and mucosal exposure devices like Endocuff have independently improved the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. This meta-analysis evaluated the combined effect of Endocuff and AI versus AI alone on colorectal neoplasia detection rates. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of Endocuff+AI versus AI alone on colorectal neoplasia detection. Primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Three RCTs with 2404 subjects were included (n = 1198 Endocuff+AI vs. n = 1206 AI alone). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff+AI group than in the AI alone group (54% vs. 48%, respectively) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.21, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). There was a trend toward higher AADR (12.3% vs. 10%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96–1.59, P = 0.10, I2 = 17%) and SSLDR (17.6% vs. 15.5%, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96–1.40, P = 0.13, I2 = 0%) in the Endocuff+AI group compared with the AI alone group, but it did not reach statistical significance. Both cecal intubation time (MD -0.61 minutes; 95% CI -1.54–0.33; P = 0.20; I2 = 87%) and withdrawal time (MD -0.42 minutes; 95% CI -1.01–0.17; P = 0.17, I2 = 60%) were similar between the two groups. Endocuff combined with AI was superior to AI alone in improving the adenoma detection rate without increasing intubation or withdrawal times.

Abstract Postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains challenging, particularly in patients utilizing chronic opioids preoperatively. Our study aimed to evaluate the effect of regional nerve blockade on perioperative pain control outcomes after TKA in patients using or not using chronic preoperative opioids. A retrospective review of our institutional database identified 434 chronic opioid patients defined as documented ongoing use greater than 3 months prior to contemporary TKA. Patients were 1:1 matched to nonopioid users based upon age, sex, body mass index, and regional block type (single-shot adductor canal block [ACB, 29%], 3-day ACB catheter [31%], or no block [41%]). All patients underwent primary TKA using periarticular injections and contemporary multimodal pain management. Immediate and 90-day postoperative outcomes, including Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Junior (KOOS, Jr), were compared via univariate analysis among the matched cohort and regional block type among chronic opioid patients. Chronic opioid patients demonstrated higher inpatient opioid use than controls (90 vs. 65 oral morphine equivalents [OMEs], respectively, p < 0.01), but no significant differences existed in length of stay (LOS), discharge pain scores, 90-day readmission or KOOS, Jr (all p ≥ 0.05). When comparing chronic opioid patients according to block type, those receiving no block had the highest LOS (1.6 days, p < 0.01), discharge pain score (5.0, p < 0.01), and inpatient opioid use (80 OMEs, p < 0.01) compared with either ACB. The subgroup receiving an ACB catheter demonstrated a significantly higher 90-day readmission rate (9%, p < 0.05). Patients utilizing chronic opioids preoperatively require more opioids in the immediate postoperative period after TKA compared with nonopioid users despite contemporary modalities. Nonetheless, the use of any type of ACB provides improved pain control in these patients.

Abstract Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has evolved from a diagnostic tool into a therapeutic modality, leading to a higher incidence of bleeding complications during and after procedures. To address this issue, various hemostatic agents have been developed, including injectable, mechanical, thermal, and topical products. Topical hemostatic agents, available in powder or gel forms, can be used as standalone treatments or as adjuncts to traditional hemostatic therapies to control or prevent bleeding. This Technical and Technology Review examines the commercially available topical hemostatic agents used in endoscopy, specifically Purastat, TC-325 Hemospray, EndoClot PHS, Nexpowder, Ankaferd Blood Stopper, and CG GEL. A systematic literature review was conducted up to January 2025, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and observational studies. Each product was assessed for its composition, mechanism of action, regulatory status, mode of use, efficacy, safety, and financial considerations. Purastat showed 94% efficacy in acute GI bleeding, reducing delayed bleeding to 4.3% in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection cases, with significantly lower thermal device usage. TC-325 Hemospray achieved 85%–98.5% primary hemostasis in upper and lower GI bleeding, with pooled hemostasis rates of 93.1% and rebleeding rates of 8.9%. It was also effective in malignancy-related bleeding, with hemostasis success up to 100%. EndoClot PHS demonstrated 76%–100% hemostasis efficacy, comparable with TC-325, with rebleeding rates of 24%–25%. It showed prophylactic potential post-ESD, with rebleeding rates of 7.3%–9.1%. Nexpowder achieved 94% hemostasis in refractory upper GI bleeds and reduced rebleeding in lower GI bleeds to 5.5% at 28 days. Ankaferd Blood Stopper demonstrated 73%–100% hemostasis across various GI bleeding sources, including peptic ulcers and malignancies, though further data on rebleeding are needed. Topical hemostatic agents offer effective options for managing GI bleeding. Products like Purastat, TC-325 Hemospray, EndoClot PHS, Nexpowder, Ankaferd Blood Stopper, and CG GEL have shown promising results in achieving hemostasis; however, further RCTs and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to better establish their roles in endoscopic practice.

Abstract Patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) have higher complication rates of anticoagulation. However, studies supporting this data are relatively old reflecting the era of vitamin K inhibitors. To assess VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) in patients (March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2023) with cancer-associated VTE and patients without cancer, the prospective Mayo Clinic Thrombophilia Clinic Registry was analyzed. Over the study period, 4,711 patients with acute VTE were enrolled including 2,064 patients with cancer (mean age 62.5 ± 12.4, 46% female) and 2,647 patients without cancer (mean age 59.4 ± 16.0, 45% female). The most common cancers were gastrointestinal (n = 423, 21%), pancreatic (n = 287, 14%), and genitourinary (n = 198, 10%). Direct oral anticoagulants were used in 1,339 (65%) cancer and in 1,952 (74%) non-cancer patients. Among cancer patients, 12-month Kaplan–Meier probability of VTE recurrence was 2.4-fold greater (7.1% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) compared with the non-cancer group, including higher recurrent leg deep vein thrombosis (3.0% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (3.5% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). Patients with cancer also had 2.1-fold greater risk of major bleeding (6.3% vs. 3.0%; p < 0.001) including bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract (3.0 vs. 1.4, p = 0.01) compared with patients without cancer. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding events were similar between the groups. In this large prospective registry of VTE management, patients with cancer had significantly higher rates of VTE recurrence and major bleeding compared with patients without cancer, yet the rate of complications are substantially smaller relative to historic values of a prior vitamin K antagonist era.