Citations

Abstract Introduction Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) identifies a hypercontractile phenotype (HP) in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), characterized by elevated resting left ventricular (LV) elastance (force = systolic blood pressure/end-systolic volume). To evaluate the prognostic significance and functional correlates of HP. Methods In a prospective multicentre study, 10 677 patients with CCS underwent resting TTE to assess LV ejection fraction (EF), stroke volume, and force by quantitative volumetric echocardiography. All patients were followed for the endpoint of all-cause mortality. In a subset of 5834 patients, stress echocardiography (exercise or dobutamine) was performed for LV contractile reserve and heart rate reserve. Results Patients were stratified into Force quintiles (Q1–Q5). Patients with hypercontractile phenotype exhibited lower stroke volume at rest (Q5 = 34.8 ± 12.3 vs Q1–Q4 = 57.4 ± 19.1 mL; P < .01) and higher EF at rest (Q5 = 64.8 ± 6.9% vs Q1–Q4 = 58.1 ± 8.7%, P < .01). During a median follow-up of 24 months (interquartile range = 12–40 months), 509 deaths occurred. The exposure-adjusted death rate was lowest in Q3 (3.53–4.51 mmHg/mL; 1.03 per 100 person/years) and higher in Q1 (≤2.62 mmHg/mL, 2.88), Q2 (2.63–3.52 mmHg/mL, 1.86), Q4 (4.52–6.11 mmHg/mL, 1.56), and Q5 (HP, >6.11 mmHg/mL; 1.88; P < .0001 vs Q1 and Q3). Multivariable analysis identified HP (Q5; HR 1.531 vs Q3, 95% CI 1.116–2.099; P = .006) and EF (HR 0.963, 95% CI 0.953–0.972; P < .0001) as independent predictors of death. During exercise or dobutamine stress, HP showed reduced LV contractile reserve (ΔEF: Q5 = 4.3 ± 9.4% vs Q1–Q4 = 7.0 ± 9.3%; P < .001) and blunted heart rate reserve (Q5 = 1.77 ± 0.33 vs Q1–Q4 = 1.85 ± 0.39; P < .01). All patients with force-based LV contractile reserve >4.1 (present in 185, 3.2% of the population) survived. Conclusion Patients with CCS with HP assessed by resting TTE demonstrate higher mortality and multilayered functional impairment, including reduced LV contractile and chronotropic reserves. Hypercontractile phenotype improved the prediction of mortality by EF. A ‘stronger’ heart is, in fact, functionally and prognostically weaker.

Purpose Part-two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA- American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) - American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1-9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8-9) and a mean of 7.92 +/- 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-Operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and time-based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion This international EU-US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non-operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence I, Formal Consensus.

Purpose: Part II of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, nonoperative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results: Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (3 Grade A ratings, 4 Grade B, 3 Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and timebased. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion: This international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of nonoperated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence: Level I, consensus.

AbstractPurposePart two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures.MethodsThis consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability.ResultsLow to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programmes and through avoidance of certain activities. Non‐operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion‐based and time‐based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance‐based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process.ConclusionThis international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non‐operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists.Level of EvidenceLevel I, consensus.

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.

Over the past decade, stress echocardiography has evolved from a test for assessing epicardial artery stenosis to a comprehensive functional test, targeting multiple cardiovascular parameters. The new approach includes several structured steps: (a) evaluating regional wall motion abnormalities to detect epicardial artery stenosis or vasospasm; (b) assessing pulmonary congestion and diastolic function via B-lines with lung ultrasound; (c) gauging preload and contractile reserve with volumetric echocardiography; (d) measuring coronary microvascular reserve using Doppler-based coronary flow velocity in the middistal left anterior descending artery; and (e) determining cardiac sympathetic reserve by tracking heart rate reserve on an ECG. This evolution was supported extensively by the Italian Society of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Imaging (SIECVI), which played a key role in five areas: (1) developing the initial, curiosity-driven project; (2) disseminating protocols and results at national and international conferences, supporting logistic infrastructure and publication expenses; (3) establishing a digital platform (customized Redcap) for data entry and storage; (4) facilitating patient recruitment across 19 Italian centers; and (5) offering formal endorsement through six presidencies, adding credibility and reach beyond any single institution. The protocol quickly advanced from concept to high-impact publications, earning inclusion in 2024 specialty guidelines. Initially Italian-led, the study now includes 50 centers across 20 countries (e.g. USA and China). Beyond the 50 peer-reviewed papers published in 2016–2024, this study offers a novel, sustainable approach to cardiac stress testing, providing more information at lower costs, with zero radiation and minimal environmental impact. SIECVI’s endorsement was instrumental in amplifying the study’s rigor and outreach.

Background: Regorafenib (R) and Trifluridine/Tipiracil ± bevacizumab (T) are approved for treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but their optimal sequence is unclear. This study describes the characteristics/clinical outcomes of patients with mCRC in U.S. clinical practice treated sequentially with R-T or T-R. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 818 patients treated with R-T or T-R between January 2015 and November 2022 was conducted using an electronic health record-derived database. The primary objective was to describe the demographic/clinical characteristics and biomarker status of patients treated with R-T or T-R, stratified by treatment line/age. Secondary objectives were to evaluate/estimate the frequency of neutropenia and myelosuppression-related treatments, the number/type of subsequent therapies, time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and overall survival (OS). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar among patients who received R-T (n = 393) or T-R (n = 425). Lower rates of moderate/severe neutropenia (26%/12% vs. 32%/16%) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor/erythropoietin use (22% vs. 24%) were observed with R-T versus T-R. The median TTD was 8.7 months and 8.5 months with R-T versus 8.1 months and 7.9 months with T-R as third- and fourth-line treatment, respectively. The median OS was 13.1 months and 11.6 months with R-T versus 11.5 months and 10.3 months with T-R as third- and fourth-line treatment, respectively. Conclusions: This study did not show a statistically significant difference in OS with R-T versus T-R. Although limited by its retrospective nature, the study suggested R-T may be preferable to T-R given the observed reduction in neutropenia/myelosuppression-related treatments.