Citations

Objective: In-office tympanostomy tube insertion (TTI) is becoming more available in the practice of pediatric otolaryngology. This study evaluated the tolerability of this procedure in young children. Method: Four methods were used to assess tolerability. (1) Standardized video recordings were collected from 30 patients under 24 months who underwent in-office TTI with a single-pass insertion device with topical anesthesia alone. The videos were then reviewed by 3 independent experts in pediatric care and rated at 5 procedural time points using a defined response scale developed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2) Separately, overall tolerability was subjectively assessed by the same experts. (3) Patient recovery was assessed by the participating otolaryngologist and support staff. (4) Patient caregivers were surveyed for their impressions of the procedure, including whether they would recommend it to other caregivers. Results: In a total of 90 reviews, 100% of children were successfully treated and were rated as having acceptably tolerated the in-office tympanostomy tube procedure. All patients returned to an acceptable baseline without inappropriate crying and were assessed as fully recovered immediately following the procedure or by the time the child was leaving clinic. For caregivers, 93% agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend the use of in-office TTI to other caregivers. Conclusions: In-office TTI in young children was determined to be universally well tolerated in young children and is a procedure that patient caregivers would recommend to other caregivers for their children. These results should help reassure otolaryngology specialists and caregivers alike that in-office ear tube placement is a viable option for young children with middle ear disease.

ABSTRACTIn this first annual review article, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee (APSc) of the Physicians' Committee (PC) curated key apheresis literature in 2023 and presented their choices for the 10 most seminal apheresis articles. PubMed and OVID search engines were used to identify manuscripts from four topic areas: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, education, and cellular therapy. To further identify seminal criteria, they had to present at least one of the following: novel findings, practice‐altering outcomes, international scope, randomized controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA ninth special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach. Inclusion criteria included: full‐length, peer‐reviewed, English language, and human subjects. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded.

Background A multidisciplinary approach improves guideline‐directed medical therapy in systolic heart failure (HF), but its efficacy in patients with HF due to cardiac sarcoidosis is unreported. Methods and Results In a retrospective cohort study, we reviewed 848 patients from our institutional cardiac sarcoidosis clinics, identifying those with a cardiac sarcoidosis diagnosis, HF (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) at index evaluation, and echocardiograms within 90 days and 11 to 36 months. Patients were stratified by participation in a pharmacist‐led medication therapy management (MTM) program for guideline‐directed medical therapy optimization (MTM versus non‐MTM [NMTM]) without randomization. Demographics, left ventricular ejection fraction, guideline‐directed medical therapy (quantified by Kansas City Medical Optimization score), and immunosuppressive therapy were assessed. Primary outcomes included changes in Kansas City Medical Optimization score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and cardiovascular event–free survival (unplanned HF hospitalization, left ventricular assist device /heart transplant, or death). The final cohort included 111 patients (median age, 57 years; 34% women; 64% New York Heart Association class I–II); 43 (39%) were MTM and 68 (61%) were NMTM. Mean Kansas City Medical Optimization score was similar at index evaluation (MTM, 23.2; NMTM, 29.6; P =0.83). At follow‐up (median, 16 months), the Kansas City Medical Optimization score increased significantly in both groups (MTM, 23.2 to 74.8; P <0.001; NMTM, 29.6 to 58.7; P <0.001) but was higher in MTM ( P =0.001). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction trended toward higher values in MTM (44.4% versus 40.0%, P =0.05). The primary clinical outcome occurred in 1 MTM (2.3%) and 16 NMTM (23.5%) patients, with higher risk in NMTM (hazard ratio, 11.97 [95% CI, 1.58–90.54]; P =0.002). Conclusions In this retrospective cohort study, a pharmacist‐led MTM program was associated with favorable guideline‐directed medical therapy optimization and lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis with HF.

Introduction: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a high burden of comorbidities. To recognize the complex interplay of obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with cardiovascular disease, the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome was recently defined, but data on the burden of CKM in HFpEF is limited. Aim: We sought to describe the prevalence of CKM components in HFpEF leveraging data from control participants in clinical trials and NHANES. Methods: We analyzed data presented in publications from four randomized clinical trials that enrolled participants with HFpEF (all of which are available via NHLBI BioLINCC and will be included in the extant HeartShare dataset): TOPCAT, RELAX, NEAT-HFpEF, and INDIE. We abstracted baseline demographic and clinical variables from study publications to define CKM components (e.g., body mass index [BMI], diabetes status, hypertension, CKD status). We compared prevalence of CKM in these trials with a representative sample of US adults with self-reported history of heart failure (HF) from NHANES 2011-2018. Results: We included 1937 patients with HFpEF from four trials with enrollment between 2006-2016 and 715 adults representing 5.6 million adults aged ≥40 years with a self-report of HF between 2011-2018 from NHANES ( Table ). Mean age was similar among enrolled trial participants with HFpEF and those with HF in NHANES (~68-69 years). Mean BMI was in the obesity range and was similar among trial participants with HFpEF and HF in NHANES (31-35 kg/m 2 ). A significant proportion of individuals had hypertension in HFpEF trials (>80%) and in the NHANES sample with HF (89%). The proportion of stage ≥ 3 CKD in HFpEF trials (≥ 37%) was similar to the NHANES sample with HF (37%). Results are shown in Table . Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF enrolled in clinical trials and those with HF in general population are significantly enriched with CKM components that may contribute to morbidity and mortality. Similar prevalence estimates were observed despite variability in trial inclusion criteria and heterogeneity in defining HFpEF and highlight CKM as a central target for HFpEF management.

Despite multiple recent guidelines recommending the diagnosis and treatment of anemia before elective cardiac surgery, few institutions have formal programs or methods in place to accomplish this. A major limitation is the perceived financial shortfall and the leadership buy-in required to undertake such an initiative. The purpose of this advisory from the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Clinical Practice Improvement Committee with endorsement by the Society for the Advancement of Patient Blood Management (SABM) is to provide an overview of preoperative anemia management programs with an emphasis on the associated financial implications. This advisory reviews the evidence for preoperative anemia management programs in both cardiac and noncardiac surgery, discusses options for managing preoperative anemia, provides novel financial modeling regarding the implementation of preoperative anemia management programs, and describes implementation challenges, potential solutions, and opportunities for improvement.

Introduction: Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) often results in systolic heart failure (HF) and responds favorably to guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT). A multidisciplinary team approach to HF care is recommended but few published examples exist in CS patients. Methods: We queried an institutional registry of 599 CS patients (2000-2023) for patients with index LVEF < 50% (within 90 d of index CS evaluation) and follow-up TTE within 11-36 months. In our CS medication therapy management (MTM) program (started 1/8/2019), pharmacists conduct independent visits with CS patients (in person or remote), discuss GDMT tolerance and symptoms, review monitoring laboratory studies, and adjust GDMT (ACEi/ARB/ARNi, beta-blocker, MRA, and/or SGLT2i) via collaborative practice agreement with the CS cardiologists. Patients were classified as MTM (≥1 MTM encounter) or NMTM patients (0 encounters). We compared (1) GDMT, (2) cardiac remodeling, and (3) clinical outcomes (event free survival to first heart failure hospitalization, LVAD, heart transplant, or death). Results: Nineteen percent (113/599) CS patients met inclusion criteria (34% female, 92% white, median age 57 y, 19% definite CS, 58% probable CS, 31% presumed CS), with 44 MTM (median 11.5 encounters, IQR 11) and 69 NMTM patients. Both MTM and NMTM patients were on a median 2 GDMT agents at index evaluation (p=0.21). At follow-up (median 19 mo MTM, 15 mo NMTM, p=0.05), MTM patients were on more GDMT agents than NMTM (median 3.0 vs 2.0, p<0.001), with higher % target dose of ACEi/ARB/ARNi (98% vs 71%, p=0.009), beta-blocker (87% vs 57%, p=0.004), and SGLT2i use (30% vs 9%, p=0.004), but similar MRA use (48% vs 32%, p=0.09). Immunosuppressive therapy was used in 88% patients (89% MTM vs 87% NMTM, p=0.79). Index LVEF was similar (MTM 36%, NMTM 32%, p=0.07). Mean change in LVEF (excluding LVAD/transplant patients) demonstrated a non-significant trend towards improved remodeling in MTM (+8.6%) vs NMTM patients (+5.5%; p=0.39). MTM patients exhibited lower risk of the clinical outcome (1/44 MTM vs 16/69 MTM patients; univariable HR 0.08 [95%CI 0.01 - 0.63], log-rank p=0.016). Conclusions: A pharmacist MTM program for CS patients with HF is associated with improved GDMT uptitration and clinical outcomes, emphasizing the value of collaborative multidisciplinary CS care.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION How should premature/primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The current guideline provides 145 recommendations on symptoms, diagnosis, causation, sequelae, and treatment of POI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) presents a significant challenge to women’s health, with far-reaching implications, both physically and emotionally. The potential implications include adverse effects on quality of life; fertility; and bone, cardiovascular, and cognitive health. Although hormone therapy (HT) can mitigate some of these effects, many questions still remain regarding the optimal management of POI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. Key questions were determined by a group of experts and informed by a scoping survey of women and health care professionals. Literature searches and assessments were then performed. Papers published up to 30 January 2024 and written in English were included in the guideline. An integrity review was conducted for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on POI included in the guideline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within the guideline development group until consensus was reached. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations in general, and particularly on those on provision of care. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline development group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE New data indicate a higher prevalence of POI, 3.5%, than was previously thought. This guideline aims to help health care professionals to apply best practice care for women with POI. The recent update of the POI guideline covers 40 clinical questions on diagnosis of the condition, the different sequelae, including bone, cardiovascular, neurological and sexual function, fertility and general well-being, and treatment options, including HT. The list of clinical questions was expanded from the previous iteration of the guideline (2015) based on the scoping survey and appreciation of emerging knowledge of POI. Questions were added on the role of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the diagnosis of POI, fertility preservation, muscle health, and specific considerations for HT in iatrogenic POI. Additionally, the topic on complementary treatments was extended with specific focus on non-hormonal treatments and lifestyle management options. Significant changes from the previous 2015 guideline include the recommendations that only one elevated FSH &gt;25 IU is required for diagnosis of POI, and guidance that AMH testing, repeat FSH measurement, and/or AMH may be required where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Recommendations were also updated regarding genetic testing, estrogen doses and regimens, use of the combined oral contraceptive and testosterone therapy. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations on provision of care. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The guideline describes different management options, but it must be acknowledged that for most of these options, supporting evidence is limited for POI. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides health care professionals with clear advice on best practice in POI care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to guide further studies in POI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproduction Life (CRE-WHiRL), and International Menopause Society (IMS), covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. N.P. declared grants from Bayer Pharma (research and consultancy) and NIHR—research POISE; consulting fees from Abbott, Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Lawley, Mithra, Theramex, Viatris; honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, Viatris; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astellas, Bayer, Theramex, Viatris; President, International Menopause Society, Medical Advisory Committee member, British Menopause Society, Patron Daisy Network. A.J.V. declared grants from Amgen Australia, Australian NHMRC, and Australian MRFF; consulting fees from IQ Fertility; honoraria from the Australasian Menopause Society; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Astellas; Board Member of the International Menopause Society (2020 to current) and Past president of the Australasian Menopause Society (2017–2019); R.A.A. declared grants from Roche (Research support, to institution), and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board of Bayer. M.C. declared grants from NHI; payments or honoraria from Up-to-Date (as editor/reviewer); Board Member of American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and of American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. M.D. declared (NIHR—HTA Reference Number: NIHR133461; NIHR—HTA Reference Number: NIHR128757; Action Medical Research and Borne: GN2818) consulting fees from a small personal medical practice, support for attending meetings and/or travel from ESHRE, Bayer and UCLH special Trustees; Participation on the Advisory Board of the British Menopause Society, UKSTORE project, the Progress Educational Trust, and the Turner Syndrome Support Society UK; Leadership or fiduciary roles in the British Fertility Society (Trustee), Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity (chair of Trustees), and the Essex Wynter charitable trust (Trustee). C.E. declared being Chair of a SIG from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Integrative Medicine Specific Interest Group and Program Lead for Next Practice Western Sydney Integrative Health. C.H.G. declared grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation (Nos. NNF15OC0016474 and NNF20OC0060610), sygesikringen danmark (No 2022-0189), and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (Nos. 0134-00406 and 0134-00130B); consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Merck, and Astra Zeneca. S.K. declared grants from Roche diagnostics. A.K. declared grants from NIH R01 5R01HD101475; consulting fees as Medical Reviewer for Flo and for Healthline; honoraria as Medical Consultant for Summus; support for attending meetings from the Reproductive Scientist Development Program; Society for Reproductive Investigation Council Member and Society for Assisted Reproduction Registry/Validation Chair; R.E.N. declared consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer Pharma, Besins Healthcare, Fidia, Theramex; honoraria from Abbott, Astellas, Exeltis, Fidia, Gedeon Richter, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Shionogi Limited, Theramex, Viatris; payment for expert testimony from Vichy Laboratories; Participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board of Advisory board from Astellas and Bayer Healthcare; President elect of the International Menopause Society (IMS). H.T. declared a grant from NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for women’s health in reproductive life. A.B. declared being chair of the Daisy Network Charity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, ASRM, CRE-WHiRL, and IMS, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. The collaborating societies make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically exclude any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

Context.— Cardiac and pulmonary allograft recipients represent a unique population, frequently interacting with support groups and exhibiting intense curiosity about their pathology. Like other solid organ transplant patients, they have enduring and frequent interaction with the laboratory for routine allograft surveillance. Objective.— To address patient requests to understand what happens to their explanted organ and to better understand their disease while simultaneously improving awareness of pathologists’ roles in their continuing care. Design.— At routine follow-up appointments, transplant nurse coordinators offer each allograft recipient the opportunity to interact with a pathologist in our “ On My Path ” program. Organ viewing occurs in a private setting, in a specialized room. Relevant pathology is discussed, and questions are answered, with documentation in the medical record. The patient is subsequently gifted a 3-dimensional model of their explanted organ. Transplant coordinators were surveyed for their feedback on the experience. Results.— One hundred fifty-eight interactions have been documented (2017–2022) at our institution, including patients who underwent cardiac transplant (96, 61%), single or bilateral lung transplant (54, 34%), or combination lung and heart transplant (8, 5%). Transplant coordinators reported an increase in patient understanding of their disease and emotional closure related to the disease through the On My Path program. Conclusions.— Pathologists providing direct patient care is a feasible model that addresses currently unmet desires of the transplant population to better understand their pathology. Providing a 3-dimensional model helps to empower patients and drives satisfaction. These interactions also improve awareness about pathology as a discipline and its importance in the continued care of transplant recipients.

Background: Penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) entails considerable soft-tissue dissection to the perineal region and involves complex tissue rearrangement. This study examines the role of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway after PIV in reducing opioid use and controlling postoperative pain. Methods: A retrospective study of 50 transfemale patients who underwent PIV at a single institution from June 2021 to January 2023 was completed. The study compared 2 groups of patients who were given different postoperative pain management regimens: group A received standard postoperative analgesics and group B received ERAS. Variables such as postoperative pain scores on the numeric pain rating scale (0–10), use of opioid medication, length of hospital stay, and patient comorbidities were recorded and compared across the 2 groups. Results: The average hospital stay length was 4.92 (±0.85) days. Group A had a slightly longer average stay compared with group B. The average pain level in both groups was 4.25 (SD ±1.51). Group A exhibited a slightly higher average pain level of 4.31 (±1.53), whereas group B exhibited 4.16 (SD±1.51) (P = 0.77). Although pain levels did not significantly vary between the 2 groups, there was a statistically significant decrease in the amount of opioid medication used in group B with a P value of 0.009. Conclusions: ERAS protocol is effective in decreasing opioid usage in the immediate postoperative setting after PIV.

AbstractObjectivesTo examine heterogeneity in physician batch ordering practices and measure the associations between a physician's tendency to batch order imaging tests on patient outcomes and resource utilization.Study Setting and DesignIn this retrospective study, we used comprehensive EMR data from patients who visited the Mayo Clinic of Arizona Emergency Department (ED) between October 6, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Primary outcomes are patient length of stay (LOS) in the ED, number of diagnostic imaging tests ordered during a patient encounter, and patients' return with admission to the ED within 72 h. The association between outcomes and physician batch tendency was measured using a multivariable linear regression controlling for various covariates.Data Sources and Analytic SampleThe Mayo Clinic of Arizona Emergency Department recorded approximately 50,836 visits, all randomly assigned to physicians during the study period. After excluding rare complaints, we were left with an analytical sample of 43,299 patient encounters.Principal FindingsFindings show that having a physician with a batch tendency 1 standard deviation (SD) greater than the average physician was associated with a 4.5% increase in ED LOS (p < 0.001). It was also associated with a 14.8% (0.2 percentage points) decrease in the probability of a 72‐h return with admission (p < 0.001), implying that batching may lead to more comprehensive evaluations, reducing the need for short‐term revisits. A batch tendency 1SD greater than that of the average physician was also associated with an additional 8 imaging tests ordered per 100 patient encounters (p < 0.001), suggesting that batch ordering may be leading to tests that would not have been otherwise ordered had the physician waited for the results from one test before placing their next order.ConclusionsThis study highlights the considerable impact of physicians' diagnostic test ordering strategies on ED efficiency and patient care. The results also highlight the need to develop guidelines to optimize ED test ordering practices.