Citations

Background: Many insurance companies in the United States rely on the Schnur sliding scale to predict resection weights to determine medical necessity for breast reduction surgery. Accurate methods to predict resection weights are needed to avoid insurance denials. The authors compared the accuracy of formulas such as the Schnur, Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales in predicting resection weights, and assessed whether they influence insurance coverage decision. Methods: A retrospective review of bilateral reduction mammaplasty procedures from June of 2017 to June of 2019 was performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Oncoplastic reduction operations were excluded. The accuracy of each formula-based estimate was evaluated with linear regression analysis. Results: One hundred fifty-four patients (308 breasts) were reviewed. The Schnur scale had low correlation with actual resection weight (r 2 = 0.381; b1 = 1.153; p < 0.001). The Appel scale was the most accurate (r 2 = 0.642; b1 = 1.01; p < 0.001), followed by the Descamps (r 2 = 0.572, b1 = 0.934, p < 0.001) and Galveston (r 2 = 0.672; b1 = 0.654; p < 0.001) scales. The Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales were more accurate for resection weights of 500 g or greater, body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², and patients younger than 50 years. For resection weights of 500 g or greater, the median difference between the estimated and actual resection weight for the Schnur, Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales was −211.4 ± 272.3, −17.5 ± 272.3, −9.6 ± 229.5, and −99.2 ± 238.5 g, respectively. No scale was accurate for resection weights less than 500 g. Insurance reimbursement was denied in 15.56 percent of patients; of these, 23 percent had resection weights less than 500 g. The Schnur scale overestimated the resection weights in 28.9 percent of patients. Conclusions: The Schnur scale is a poor predictor of breast resection weight. The Appel scale is the most accurate estimator, especially in the young and obese population with larger resections. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, I.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is responsible for approximately 6% of global mortality and 25% of cardiovascular (CV) deaths. SCD has been traditionally linked to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathies, and genetic arrhythmia disorders. However, advancements in care for these diseases have not translated to a proportional reduction in SCD. This suggests an important role of underrecognized contributing pathologies. Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of illnesses prevalent in tropical and sub-tropical regions which have been understudied partially due to their high prevalence in marginalized populations. The relationship between SCD and Chagas disease has been well-established, though emerging literature suggests that other NTDs with CV involvement may lead to fatal arrhythmias. Additionally, specific therapies for a subset of NTDs put patients at increased risk of malignant arrhythmias and other cardiac complications. This review aims to summarize the association between a group of selected NTDs and SCD.

Abstract Background Glioblastoma is the most common and devastating primary brain cancer. Radiotherapy is standard of care; however, it is associated with brain radiation toxicity (BRT). This study used a multi-omics approach to determine whether BRT-related genes (RGs) harbor survival prognostic value and whether their encoded proteins represent novel therapeutic targets for glioblastoma. Methods RGs were identified through analysis of single-nucleotide variants associated with BRT (R-SNVs). Functional relationships between RGs were established using Protein-Protein Interaction networks. The influence of RGs and their functional groups on glioblastoma prognosis was evaluated using clinical samples from the Glioblastoma Bio-Discovery Portal database and validated using the Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas dataset. The identification of clusters of radiotoxic and putative pathogenic variants in proteins encoded by RGs was achieved by computational 3D structural analysis. Results We identified the BRT-related 15CAcBRT molecular signature with prognostic value in glioblastoma, by analysis of the COMT and APOE protein functional groups. Its external validation confirmed clinical relevance independent of age, MGMT promoter methylation status, and IDH mutation status. Interestingly, the genes IL6, APOE, and MAOB documented significant gene expression levels alteration, useful for drug repositioning. Biological networks associated with 15CAcBRT signature involved pathways relevant to cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Analysis of 3D clusters of radiotoxic and putative pathogenic variants in proteins coded by RGs unveiled potential novel therapeutic targets in neuro-oncology. Conclusions 15CAcBRT is a BRT-related molecular signature with prognostic significance for glioblastoma patients and represents a hub for drug repositioning and development of novel therapies.

Background: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a lifesaving procedure, relieving intracranial hypertension. Conventionally, DCs are performed by a reverse question mark (RQM) incision. However, the use of the L. G. Kempe’s (LGK) incision has increased in the last decade. We aim to describe the surgical nuances of the LGK and the standard RQM incisions to treat patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), empyema, and malignant ischemic stroke. Furthermore, to describe, surgical limitations, wound healing, and neurological outcomes related to each technique. Methods: To describe a prospective acquired, case series including patients who underwent a DC using either an RQM or an LGK incision in our institution between 2019 and 2020. Results: A total of 27 patients underwent DC. Of those, ten patients were enrolled. The mean age was 42.1 years (26–71), and 60% were male. Five patients underwent DC using a large RQM incision; three had severe TBI, one ICH, and one ischemic stroke. The other five patients underwent DC using an LGK incision (one ICH, one subdural empyema, and one ischemic stroke). About 50% of patients presented severe headaches associated with vomiting, and six presented altered mental status (drowsy or stuporous). Motor deficits were present in four cases. In patients with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, symptoms were directly related to the stroke location. Hospital stays varied between 13 and 22 days. No readmissions were recorded, and no fatal outcome was documented during the follow-up. Conclusion: The utility of the LGK incision is comparable with the classic RQM incision to treat acute brain injuries, where an urgent decompression must be performed. Some of these cases include malignant ischemic strokes, ICH, and empyema. No differences were observed between both techniques in terms of prevention of scalp necrosis and general cosmetic outcomes.

Abstract The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

Background COVID‐19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 were enrolled in a multicenter‐international prospective registry (HOPE COVID‐19). Clinical data and in‐hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity‐score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score‐matched population, cumulative incidence of in‐hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P =0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID‐19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in‐hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42–0.92], P =0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.