Citations

Background. Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is increasingly recognized as a significant indication for liver transplantation (LT) in North America. Yet data on its impact in other countries, such as Spain, remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and trajectory of MASLD-related LT in Spain and compare these findings with broader national data and international data sets. Methods. Multicenter retrospective cohort study including adults (18 y and older) undergoing LT for MASLD between 2010 and 2023 in 5 large Spanish centers. Additional data were obtained from the Spanish Transplant Registry (Organización Nacional de Trasplantes) and high-prevalence LT centers in the United States (n = 7) and Canada (n = 1). Results. Among 3448 LTs performed in the 5 Spanish centers, 3.4% (n = 117) were MASLD-related. An increasing trajectory of MASLD-related LT was observed, with predictions suggesting a rise to 5.4%–10.8% of LTs for MASLD by 2028. These trends were consistent with Organización Nacional de Trasplantes data. Compared with North American data, the growth trajectory in Spain showed a less steep increase. Hepatocellular carcinoma rates were higher in the Spanish MASLD-LT recipients, yet metabolic comorbidities were frequent in all populations. Conclusions. The burden of MASLD-related LT in Spain is growing, yet at a less pronounced rate than in the United States/Canada. Whether this slower increase will persist or decline in the future as newer antiobesity and MASLD-related drugs are increasingly used is still unknown. In the meantime, our results highlight the need for tailored approaches to management and prevention in the Spanish population and underscore the importance of continued monitoring and research into the evolving impact of MASLD on LT in Spain and beyond.

Background: The AFFINITY trial (NCT05890872) is a prospective, non-randomized, open-label, single-arm study evaluating the safety, immunological impact, and preliminary efficacy of Aliya pulsed electric field ablation in patients with solid tumors. Thirty-one patients were enrolled; thirty received lung lesion ablation prior to continuation on standard-of-care treatment. This manuscript reports six-month local control outcomes and immunological response characteristics. Radiological outcomes were assessed using a modified RECIST 1.1, and immunological impact was evaluated via changes in peripheral blood immunocyte populations and detection of immunoglobulins (Ig) to tumor-associated antigens in serum post-ablation. Methods: Twenty-eight patients underwent radiological assessment of ablated lesions at approximately 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-ablation to evaluate local control. Peripheral blood was collected for immune monitoring using flow cytometry and to detect IgG responses to biopsy-specific and tumor-associated antigens. Results: At 6 months, two cohorts emerged: 12 received ablation only, and 16 received ablation plus systemic and/or focal therapies (radiotherapy or second ablation). In the ablation-only group, imaging showed local control in all ablated lesions (8/12 SD, 4/12 PR), suggesting local efficacy without systemic therapy in those patients. Immunophenotyping showed dynamic changes in circulating immune cells, including T and B cell activation. A subset also exhibited modulation of tumor antigen-specific IgG, indicating a systemic humoral response. Conclusions: This analysis provides preliminary evidence that this form of ablation may promote local tumor control and modulate systemic immune function. These findings support the immunogenic potential of this specialized energy and warrant further investigation. Extended 12-month data for the full cohort will be reported in a future manuscript.

Introduction: Corticosteroid therapy has been demonstrated to improve prognosis and reduce mortality in patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection by attenuating the exaggerated inflammatory response that emerges in the late phase of infection. However, its impact on patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, who are at higher risk of complications, has not been specifically studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality and long-term COVID-19 symptoms in this high-risk population. Methods: We analyzed the prospective registry HOPE-2. Patients with previous cardiovascular disease were selected, and 18-month all-cause death was defined as the primary endpoint. Long-term COVID-19 symptoms were considered as secondary endpoints. A total of 1188 patients with previous heart disease were included, of which 453 received corticosteroid treatment. Propensity score matching analysis in a 1:1 fashion was performed based on baseline variables that exhibited a p-value < 0.05 in the univariant analysis and outcome variables that defined corticosteroid use, with a final matched population of 796 patients. Results: In patients with pre-existing heart disease, corticosteroid treatment was not associated with differences in 18-month all-cause mortality (p = 0.52). However, a shorter duration of hospitalization (median: 8 days [IQR: 4–14] and 11 days [IQR: 7–18]; p < 0.001) was observed in patients who received corticosteroids. No significant differences in long-term COVID-19 symptoms were observed between the two groups. Conclusions: In patients with pre-existing heart disease, the absence of a clear harmful effect suggests that the positive effects of corticosteroids may be offset by their potential adverse effects which could contribute to the persistence of long COVID symptoms. This finding may reflect a differential response to corticosteroids in this high-risk subgroup, highlighting the need for further studies to clarify the role of this therapy in such patients.

Importance Adjuvant radiotherapy can improve locoregional control and survival in patients with olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB), particularly with advanced-stage and histologic-grade disease. Standard radiotherapy treatment is with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT) provides theoretical advantages in greater sparing of dose to uninvolved organs at risk. Objective To investigate if there are differences in the effectiveness and radiation treatment–related adverse events (RTAEs) between adjuvant IMRT and PBRT for patients with ONB. Design, Setting, and Participants This propensity score–matched cohort study included patients with ONB treated between February 2005 and April 2021 with either IMRT or PBRT at 9 academic tertiary care centers in North America. Patients were matched 1:2 based on age, modified Kadish stage, and Hyams grade. Data were analyzed from July 2024 to January 2025. Exposure Adjuvant IMRT or adjuvant PBRT. Main Outcomes and Measures Local recurrence-free survival (RFS), any RFS, and overall survival (OS). RTAEs, ie, grade 2 events or higher based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, were recorded for both modalities. Results Of 54 included patients, 27 (50%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years. A total of 18 were treated with PBRT and 36 were treated with IMRT. Most patients had modified Kadish stage C disease (33 of 54 [61%]), and 24 patients (44%) had Hyams grade III or IV disease. The RTAE rate was 20% (8 of 40); IMRT had a rate of 21% (6 of 29), and PBRT had a rate of 18% (2 of 11). The difference in the point estimates for 10-year RFS showed a potential clinical benefit favoring IMRT, although the wide confidence interval indicates uncertainty (10-year RFS: IMRT, 63.3%; 95% CI, 44.6-89.8; PBRT, 37.8%; 95% CI, 14.2-100; difference, 25.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.6 to 68.6). There were no clinically meaningful differences in 10-year local RFS (IMRT, 75.6%; 95% CI, 59.8-95.4; PBRT, 72.7%; 95% CI, 45.2-100; difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −35.9 to 41.7) or 10-year OS (IMRT, 61.8%; 95% CI, 42.8-89.1; PBRT, 57.1%; 95% CI, 24.3-100; difference, 4.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −49.2 to 58.6), although wide confidence intervals indicate considerable uncertainty. Conclusions and Relevance Due to the imprecision of estimates, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative effectiveness of IMRT vs PBRT for patients with ONB. These preliminary data may inform the design of appropriately powered prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of PBRT vs IMRT in this population.

Background Outcome selection in regional anesthesia and acute pain research is inconsistent, often lacking patient-centered priorities and validated instruments. We aimed to prioritize key outcomes and propose suitable measurement tools to improve the quality, consistency, and relevance of regional anesthesia research. Methods We conducted a multiround Delphi process, including two electronic voting rounds, a multiday in-person meeting, and a patient panel. Experts and patients evaluated existing and proposed outcomes for importance, validity, and relevance. Outcomes reaching ≥70% agreement were prioritized, and appropriate measurement instruments were identified. Results Thirty-two experts and three patients participated. Across three Delphi rounds, 10 outcomes were prioritized for future regional anesthesia research: seven efficacy outcomes (pain scores; opioid consumption; Brief Pain Inventory; functional outcomes; cognitive function; length of stay; block duration); two multidimensional outcomes (quality of recovery and development of a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument); one safety outcome (chronic postsurgical pain). Patients prioritized cognitive recovery, function, chronic pain, and pain scores. Conclusions This consensus-based, patient-centered framework defines the core priorities for future regional anesthesia and acute pain research. Future work should focus on developing and validating a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument, refining multidimensional measures such as functional recovery, cognitive outcomes, and the Brief Pain Inventory, and standardizing the reporting of chronic pain and opioid-related outcomes. Adoption of these priorities will enhance methodological consistency, comparability, and patient relevance in future clinical trials.

Background: Progressive heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) often requires escalation to temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Following the 2018 UNOS allocation changes, our center revised its BTT strategy to optimize support and shorten wait times. At our institution, the Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist via the axillary approach was selectively used for patients who remained refractory to guideline-directed medical therapy, failed single-inotrope therapy, and were not considered suitable durable LVAD candidates by our multidisciplinary heart team. We compared transplant-related outcomes of BTT patients supported with Impella 5.5 versus durable LVAD. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all heart and heart/kidney transplant candidates at Mayo Clinic Florida from October 2018 to February 2021. INTERMACS profile, baseline characteristics, and perioperative data were collected at the time of device implantation and throughout the transplant hospitalization. Results: A total of 87 heart and 4 heart–kidney transplants were completed. Forty-five patients (49%) required MCS as BTT: 27 (60%) with a durable LVAD and 18 (40%) with an Impella 5.5. All eighteen patients with Impella 5.5 as BTT (100%) were transplanted compared to nineteen patients with durable LVAD (70%), p = 0.001. The median time from listing to transplant was substantially shorter with Impella (32 vs. 696 days, p < 0.001), and this difference persisted across INTERMACS profiles. UNOS status at transplant was more urgent for Impella than LVAD (p < 0.001). Transplant surgery following Impella support required shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (181 vs. 219 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in lower postoperative vasoactive-inotropic requirements (7.9 vs. 13, p = 0.003). No patients in the Impella group died or were delisted while awaiting transplant, whereas 5 LVAD patients (26%) died or were removed due to LVAD complications (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates that the use of the Impella 5.5 as BTT was associated with significantly shorter waitlist time, higher transplantation rates, reduced perioperative morbidity, and lower postoperative vasoactive support compared with durable LVAD as BTT. These benefits were achieved despite a higher severity of illness at transplantation in the Impella cohort.

Background Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remain largely unpredictable, potentially affecting multiple organ systems and occurring at almost any point during and even occasionally after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. To identify populations at risk for these immune-mediated toxicities, we analyzed genetic characteristics and immune markers associated with clinically significant irAEs. Methods We carried out a genome-wide association study on 373 white patients receiving ICI treatment. We identified single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with irAEs. Blood cytokine profiling and peripheral blood mononuclear cell RNA sequencing were performed at pretreatment baseline and 6–8 weeks after ICI initiation. Findings were validated in two external cohorts. Results We identified genetic haplotypes in VWA8 (Von Willebrand Factor A Domain Containing 8) , OSBPL6 (Oxysterol Binding Protein Like 6), and ADAMTS9-AS2 (ADAM Metallopeptidase With Thrombospondin Type 1 Motif 9 Antisense RNA 2) associated with grade ≥2 irAEs. Patients carrying risk haplotypes for one or more genes exhibited significantly greater rates of grade ≥2 (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.83 to 5.02; p<0.001), grade ≥3 (OR 3.59; 95% CI 1.93 to 6.64; p<0.001), and multiple type irAE (OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.53 to 4.39; p<0.001). Serum CCL3 levels were significantly elevated in individuals carrying risk haplotypes (p=0.03). Gene expression analysis demonstrated activated autoimmune and inflammatory pathways in the genetic risk group. Conclusions Novel polymorphisms in VWA8, OSBPL6, and ADAMTS9-AS2 may impact immune pathways, promote inflammation, potentiate autoimmune phenotypes, and convey risk of irAE in ICI-treated patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic treatment after transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains to be determined. The objective of this trial was to compare anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy for preventing device-related thrombosis (DRT) after LAAC. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter international randomized trial comparing 2 different antithrombotic strategies for preventing DRT after LAAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin+clopidogrel) for 60 days. Patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography at 60 days, and the images were analyzed in a central echocardiography laboratory by experienced echocardiographers blinded to the allocated treatment. The primary outcome was DRT as determined by transesophageal echocardiography 60 days after LAAC in patients receiving the allocated treatment at the time of transesophageal echocardiography (per-protocol analysis). The safety outcome included all-cause mortality, stroke, bleeding, or site-reported DRT within 60 days after LAAC in all randomized patients (intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS: A total of 510 patients (mean age 77±9 years, 35% women) were included between October 2018 and May 2025, and 253 and 257 patients were randomized to the DOAC and DAPT groups, respectively. Of these, 399 patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography and were receiving the allocated treatment at 60 days after LAAC. The primary outcome occurred in 3 patients (1.5%) in the DOAC group compared with 8 patients (4.1%) in the DAPT group (difference, −2.7% [95% CI, −6.0% to 0.6%]; P =0.110). The safety outcome occurred in 52 patients (22.5%) in the DOAC group compared with 82 patients (34.9%) in the DAPT group (difference, −12.4% [95% CI, −20.6% to −4.2%]; P =0.003), and differences were mainly driven by a lower rate of bleeding events in the DOAC group (44 patients [17.4%] versus 64 patients [24.9%]; difference, −7.5% [95% CI, −14.6% to −0.4%]; P =0.038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DOACs after LAAC failed to reduce DRT compared with DAPT, but it was associated with an improved safety profile. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of statistical power issues related to the narrower-than-expected between-group differences and will need confirmation in future larger studies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03568890.