Citations

Heart transplantation is a well-established treatment for end-stage heart failure, but many patients present in poor physical condition, complicating outcomes. The Impella 5.5 device, used in cardiogenic shock, may support pretransplant rehabilitation by stabilizing organ function and promoting functional improvement. This retrospective cohort study assessed the relationship between functional status, measured by standardized Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Basic Mobility (AM-PAC) scores, and days alive outside the hospital within 30 days post-transplant (DAOH-30). Patients who received Impella 5.5 support before transplantation between January 2019 and October 2023 were included, excluding those without AM-PAC scores within 24 hours pretransplant. Among 65 patients, the median DAOH-30 was 15 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8–19). Higher pretransplant standardized AM-PAC scores correlate with increased DAOH-30 (adjusted coefficient 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04), as did AM-PAC score improvement during rehabilitation (adjusted coefficient 0.35; 95% CI = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04). Extended rehabilitation was associated with greater functional gains. These findings suggest that better pretransplant functional status and rehabilitation-related improvements were associated with increased DAOH-30. The Impella 5.5 device facilitates rehabilitation and may enhance post-transplant outcomes. Further research should refine strategies to optimize rehabilitation and recovery in this high-risk population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There has been limited assessment between anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. We sought to compare PROMs from two-level ACDF with single-level ACCF procedures. We evaluate these results in the context of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, which have not been performed previously. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database Spine Collaborative Research Study Group compared two-level ACDF and single-level ACCF at 3-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMs included arm pain Numeric Rating Scale, neck pain Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine differences in perioperative outcomes, as well as the impact of two-level ACDF vs one-level ACCF on PROMs. MCID thresholds were based off previously established limits. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty patients were included (236 ACDF, 94 ACCF), and the follow-up rate was 82% at 2 years. There was a significantly higher baseline age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, proportion of diabetes, osteoarthritis, ambulation dependence, and myelopathy severity in the ACCF cohort. On multivariable analysis, the ACCF group had greater average length of stay and estimated blood loss. There were no significant differences between reoperation rates or nonroutine discharge. There were similar rates of MCID achievement for PROMs at all time points. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both ACDF and ACCF procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy are able to achieve similar, clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs by 2 years. Patients undergoing single-level ACCF have more estimated blood loss and longer length of stay, as well as worse baseline myelopathy. Both procedures have efficacious, durable outcomes. It is reasonable that other factors, such as radiographic characteristics and patient symptoms, may influence patient selection for ACDF vs ACCF.

Summary Caustic esophageal injury can cause severe morbidity and mortality. Despite the need for emergent treatment, individual experience in diagnosis and management can be limited. Computed tomography (CT) has emerged as a promising non-invasive modality for assessing injury severity, but the clinical utility of both CT and endoscopy should be investigated. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of the PubMed database identified relevant articles published from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies investigating the use of CT and/or endoscopy in diagnosing and managing caustic esophageal injury. Twelve articles were selected from a pool of 931 studies. Findings suggested that CT was superior in diagnostic capability to endoscopy in high-grade injury and stricture formation, but less so for low grade injuries. Diagnostic algorithms incorporating imaging with laboratory studies have emerged in the literature, which are promising pending additional validation. CT can serve as a valuable, non-invasive tool in the initial evaluation of caustic esophageal injury and is postulated to accurately predict both the need for emergent surgery and the risk of stricture formation. However, CT should not replace but rather complement the use of endoscopy to comprehensively evaluate these potentially highly morbid situations.

Abstract Aims Significant advancements have been made in the management of obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), yet the extent of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient reduction achieved with commonly used pharmacological therapies [beta-blockers (BBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), disopyramide, and cardiac myosin inhibitors (CMIs)] relative to each other is still unclear. Methods and results PubMed and Scopus were searched up to September 2024. Clinical trials or observational studies that assessed the changes associated with BBs, CCBs, disopyramide, or CMIs in LVOT gradient at rest or with provocation in patients with oHCM were included. Mean changes in LVOT gradients were pooled as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random-effects model. Thirty-seven studies, with 44 arms and 1898 patients, were included in the analysis. At the therapeutic class level, pooled analysis showed that disopyramide was associated with the highest reduction in LVOT gradient at rest [MD: −43.5 (95% CI, −51.6 to −35.3)], followed by CMIs [MD: −34.8 (95% CI, −40.6 to −29.0)], BBs [MD: −20.7 (95% CI, −29.4 to −12.0)], and then CCBs [MD: −14.7 (95% CI, −23.3 to −6.1)], inter-action P < 0.01. Within CMIs, mavacamten had a higher effect than aficamten on gradient reduction; among the included BBs, metoprolol showed the highest gradient reduction, while among CCBs, verapamil was the most effective (inter-action P < 0.01). Similar results were observed for provocable LVOT gradients. Conclusion Pharmacological therapies effectively reduced LVOT gradients in oHCM patients to varying degrees, with disopyramide and CMIs showing the highest effect, followed by BBs and CCBs.

ABSTRACT Objective There is limited consensus on endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) reconstruction principles. This study aims to generate comprehensive themes regarding ESBS reconstruction by pooling the experiences of ESBS experts, with comparison to a literature review of current published evidence. Methods Structured qualitative interviews of ESBS experts regarding postoperative management and reconstruction of various defect locations were conducted. Results A total of 68 experts comprising 40 academic teams across 13 countries with an average of 18 years of ESBS experience were included. We propose 10 stepwise algorithms for common skull base reconstruction scenarios based on these expert interviews. When available, the nasoseptal flap is used for all high_flow cerebrospinal leak defects. Multilayered reconstruction is favored at all anatomical subsites with increasing number of layers for increasing defect size and complexity. Heterogeneity exists in terms of inlay technique and materials, free grafting versus various pedicled flap options for low‐flow defects or in the absence of a nasal septum, nasal packing, tissue sealant, lumbar drain use, and postoperative management. Commonalities and discrepancies between experts were summarized. Conclusion Skull base reconstruction and post‐ESBS management is highly complex with a wide variety of practice patterns and expert strategies. Further research of higher quality evidence is warranted to identify optimal management patterns, though the current work aims to inform surgeons on these controversial areas by drawing from numerous experiences.

Hazardous alcohol use remains a major contributor to acute and chronic liver disease, while alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a leading indication for liver transplantation. In recent years, embedded, interprofessional ALD clinics have improved access to alcohol use disorder care within hepatology and liver transplantation, but more work is needed to meet this challenge. The literature is lacking regarding scaling procedures to provide services for increasingly large ill patient populations. This article begins to fill this gap by describing “expanded ALD care”: broad, innovative, longitudinal, interprofessional care delivery strategies surpassing standalone clinics. Drawing from analogous patient populations served by collaborative models in primary care and comprehensive eating disorder treatment, the expanded ALD care framework proposes practical strategies toward specific innovations: equipoise between biomedical and psychosocial care elements, increased clinician number and reach, long-term patient relationships, harm reduction and palliative care, outreach to external agencies and clinicians, and enhanced support for patients and families. The article also defines attributes of innovative healthcare systems that support expanded ALD care.

Abstract Background Primary aldosteronism (PA), a primary adrenal disorder leading to excessive aldosterone production by one or both adrenal glands, is a common cause of hypertension. It is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications compared with primary hypertension. Despite effective methods for diagnosing and treating PA, it remains markedly underdiagnosed and undertreated. Objective To develop an updated guideline that provides a practical, clinical approach to identifying and managing PA to improve diagnosis rates and encourage targeted treatment. Methods The Guideline Development Panel (GDP), composed of a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and experts in systemic review methodology, used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to define 10 questions related to the diagnosis and treatment of PA. Systematic reviews were conducted for each question. The GDP used the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to consider contextual factors, such as stakeholder values and preferences, costs and required resources, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and the potential impact on health equity. Results We suggest that all individuals with hypertension be screened for PA by measuring aldosterone and renin and determining the aldosterone to renin ratio, and that subsequent clinical care be guided by the results. We suggest that individuals with PA receive PA-specific therapy, either medical or surgical. In individuals who screen positive for PA, we suggest (1) commencement of PA-specific medical therapy in individuals who do not desire or are not candidates for surgery and in situations where the probability of lateralizing PA (excess aldosterone produced by one adrenal) is low based on screening results; and (2) aldosterone suppression testing in situations when screening results indicate an intermediate probability for lateralizing PA and individualized decision making confirms a desire to pursue eligibility for surgical therapy. In those who test positive by aldosterone suppression testing, and in those in whom screening results show a high probability of lateralizing PA (obviating the need for aldosterone suppression testing), we suggest adrenal lateralization with computed tomography scanning and adrenal venous sampling prior to deciding the treatment approach (medical vs surgical). In all individuals with PA and an adrenal adenoma, we suggest performing a 1-mg overnight dexamethasone suppression test. We suggest the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) over epithelial sodium-channel (ENaC) inhibitors in the medical treatment of PA. We suggest the use of spironolactone over other MRAs, given its lower cost and greater availability; however, all MRAs, when titrated to equivalent potencies, are anticipated to have similar efficacy in treating PA. Thus, MRAs with greater mineralocorticoid receptor specificity and fewer androgen/progesterone receptor-mediated side effects may be preferred in some situations. In individuals receiving MRA therapy, we suggest monitoring renin and, in those whose hypertension remains uncontrolled and renin is suppressed, titrating the MRA to increase renin. Conclusion These recommendations provide a practical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of PA. They are based on currently available literature and take into consideration outcomes that are important to key stakeholders. The goal is to increase identification of individuals with PA and, by initiating PA-specific medical or surgical therapy, improve blood pressure control and reduce PA-associated adverse cardiovascular events. The guidelines also highlight important knowledge gaps in PA diagnosis and management.

Purpose The aim of part-one of this EU-US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programs, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) will be presented in a part-II article. Methods This consensus followed ESSKA “formal consensus” methodology. For this combined ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy), AOSSM (American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine), ASSPT (American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy) initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (USA and 13 European countries) including orthopedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature, proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations reaching final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to adress the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence of the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), one received a grade A of recommendation, two a grade B, nine a grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1-9) and the global mean rating was 8.4+/-0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion-based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time-based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion-based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated, and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence I, Consensus.

Abstract Purpose The aim of part one of this EU‐US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programmes, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures will be presented in a part II article. Methods This consensus followed the European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA)'s ‘formal consensus’ methodology. For this combined ESSKA, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (US and 13 European countries), including orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature and proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations, reaching a final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to address the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence in the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), 1 received a Grade A of recommendation, 2 a Grade B, 9 a Grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1–9). The global mean rating was 8.4 ± 0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion‐based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time‐based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion‐based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence Level I, consensus.