Citations

Background: Sequencing Mendelian arrhythmia genes in individuals without an indication for arrhythmia genetic testing can identify carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants. However, the extent to which these variants are associated with clinically meaningful phenotypes before or after return of variant results is unclear. In addition, the majority of discovered variants are currently classified as variants of uncertain significance, limiting clinical actionability. Methods: The eMERGE-III study (Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Phase III) is a multicenter prospective cohort that included 21 846 participants without previous indication for cardiac genetic testing. Participants were sequenced for 109 Mendelian disease genes, including 10 linked to arrhythmia syndromes. Variant carriers were assessed with electronic health record–derived phenotypes and follow-up clinical examination. Selected variants of uncertain significance (n=50) were characterized in vitro with automated electrophysiology experiments in HEK293 cells. Results: As previously reported, 3.0% of participants had P/LP variants in the 109 genes. Herein, we report 120 participants (0.6%) with P/LP arrhythmia variants. Compared with noncarriers, arrhythmia P/LP carriers had a significantly higher burden of arrhythmia phenotypes in their electronic health records. Fifty-four participants had variant results returned. Nineteen of these 54 participants had inherited arrhythmia syndrome diagnoses (primarily long-QT syndrome), and 12 of these 19 diagnoses were made only after variant results were returned (0.05%). After in vitro functional evaluation of 50 variants of uncertain significance, we reclassified 11 variants: 3 to likely benign and 8 to P/LP. Conclusions: Genome sequencing in a large population without indication for arrhythmia genetic testing identified phenotype-positive carriers of variants in congenital arrhythmia syndrome disease genes. As the genomes of large numbers of people are sequenced, the disease risk from rare variants in arrhythmia genes can be assessed by integrating genomic screening, electronic health record phenotypes, and in vitro functional studies. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier; NCT03394859.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

AbstractBackgroundThe anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.MethodsStudies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsThree clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.ConclusionsMIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

AbstractBackgroundSurgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy‐based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).MethodsTwenty‐five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsFour clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.ConclusionsThe expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

PURPOSE Definitive or postoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is curative for human papillomavirus–associated (HPV+) oropharynx cancer (OPC) but induces significant toxicity. As a deintensification strategy, we studied primary transoral surgery (TOS) and reduced postoperative radiation therapy (RT) in intermediate-risk HPV+ OPC. METHODS E3311 is a phase II randomized trial of reduced- or standard-dose postoperative RT for resected stage III-IVa (American Joint Committee on Cancer-seventh edition) HPV+ OPC, determined by pathologic parameters. Primary goals were feasibility of prospective multi-institutional study of TOS for HPV+ OPC, and oncologic efficacy (2-year progression-free survival) of TOS and adjuvant therapy in intermediate-risk patients after resection. TOS plus 50 Gy was considered promising if the lower limit of the exact 90% binomial confidence intervals exceeded 85%. Quality of life and swallowing were measured by functional assessment of cancer therapy-head and neck and MD Anderson Dysphagia Index. RESULTS Credentialed surgeons performed TOS for 495 patients. Eligible and treated patients were assigned as follows: arm A (low risk, n = 38) enrolled 11%, intermediate risk arms B (50 Gy, n = 100) or C (60 Gy, n = 108) randomly allocated 58%, and arm D (high risk, n = 113) enrolled 31%. With a median 35.2-month follow-up for 359 evaluable (eligible and treated) patients, 2-year progression-free survival Kaplan-Meier estimate is 96.9% (90% CI, 91.9 to 100) for arm A (observation), 94.9% (90% CI, 91.3 to 98.6]) for arm B (50 Gy), 96.0% (90% CI, 92.8 to 99.3) for arm C (60 Gy), and 90.7% (90% CI, 86.2 to 95.4) for arm D (66 Gy plus weekly cisplatin). Treatment arm distribution and oncologic outcome for ineligible or step 2 untreated patients (n = 136) mirrored the 359 evaluable patients. Exploratory comparison of functional assessment of cancer therapy-head and neck total scores between arms B and C is presented. CONCLUSION Primary TOS and reduced postoperative RT result in outstanding oncologic outcome and favorable functional outcomes in intermediate-risk HPV+ OPC.

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about immense change in health care. Surgical specialties in particular have had to make major adjustments because of the cancellation of nonemergent surgeries. Aesthetic surgery fellowships are uniquely affected because of the high number of elective cases and the length of the fellowship. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on current and upcoming aesthetic surgery fellows has not been studied. Objective The aim of this article was to study the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on both American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons-endorsed and nonendorsed aesthetic fellowship programs. Methods A 23-question anonymous web-based survey was sent to aesthetic surgery fellowship directors with an active program in the United States. Surveys were collected from April 18, 2020, through May 14, 2020, with Qualtrics and then analyzed with Microsoft Excel. A 7-question follow-up survey was sent to directors, and a 23-question survey was sent to aesthetic surgery fellows. Data for these surveys were collected from June 6, 2020, through August 18, 2020. The surveys asked questions pertaining to adjustments and impact on current fellow training, as well as possible impact on fellows starting in 2020 and 2021. Results There was a 65.5% (19 of 29) response rate for the initial director survey, a 31% (9 of 29) rate for the director follow up survey, and a 28% (9 of 32) rate for the fellow-specific survey. All directors and fellows reported that the pandemic had some impact on aesthetic fellow training. A total of 5.3% of directors reported that they believe COVID-19 would have a “significant impact” on their fellows becoming well-trained aesthetic surgeons, whereas 66.7% of fellows reported that it will have a “mild impact.” Predicted impact on future fellows was not as significant. Conclusion Telemedicine, educational efforts, and standardization of guidelines can be increased to minimize loss of training due to COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation and shared experiences can assist fellowships in customizing programs to provide well-rounded education during the pandemic.