Murad, M. Hassan

Background and Purpose— We aimed at providing estimates of mortality associated with cardiometabolic comorbidity and incident readmission from cardiometabolic as compared with noncardiometabolic conditions after a first transient ischemic attack. Methods— Between 2000 and 2015, patients hospitalized for a first transient ischemic attack were examined for cardiometabolic comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation), 5-year incident hospitalization, and time to death. Results— Of 251 patients with transient ischemic attack, 134 (53%) had at least 1 and 55 (22%) had at least 2 cardiometabolic conditions. By 5 years, 491 readmissions (134 [27%] cardiometabolic and 357 [73%] noncardiometabolic) and 75 deaths (27 [36%] cardiometabolic and 47 [64%] noncardiometabolic) were observed. Mortality was increased with any concurrent cardiometabolic comorbidity (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.17–3.03; P =0.0089) with multiplicative mortality risk from a combination of coronary artery disease and heart failure. Each hospitalization was associated with a 1.5-fold risk of death (95% confidence interval, 1.37–1.64; P <0.0001). Risk of cardiometabolic and noncardiometabolic mortality was correlated with the corresponding category-specific readmission. Conclusions— Among patients hospitalized for first transient ischemic attack, 5-year mortality is associated with concurrent cardiometabolic comorbidity and rates of subsequent hospitalization.

Background There is no consensus on the most effective and best tolerated first‐line antiarrhythmic treatment for fetal tachyarrhythmia. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare the efficacy, safety, and fetal–maternal tolerance of first‐line monotherapies for fetal supraventricular tachycardia and atrial flutter. Methods and Results A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted through January 2017. Only studies that made a direct comparison between first‐line treatments of fetal tachyarrhythmia were included. Outcomes of interest were termination of fetal tachyarrhythmia, fetal demise, and maternal complications. Ten studies met inclusion criteria, with 537 patients. Overall, 291 patients were treated with digoxin, 137 with flecainide, 102 with sotalol, and 7 with amiodarone. Digoxin achieved a lower rate of supraventricular tachycardia termination compared with flecainide (odds ratio [ OR ]: 0.773; 95% confidence interval [ CI ], 0.605–0.987; I 2 =34%). In fetuses with hydrops fetalis, digoxin had lower rates of tachycardia termination compared with flecainide ( OR : 0.412; 95% CI , 0.268–0.632; I 2 =0%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of maternal side effects between digoxin and flecainide groups ( OR : 1.134; 95% CI , 0.129–9.935; I 2 =80.79%). The incidence of maternal side effects was higher in patients treated with digoxin compared with sotalol ( OR : 3.148; 95% CI , 1.468–6.751; I 2 =0%). There was no difference in fetal demise between flecainide and digoxin ( OR : 0.767; 95% CI , 0.140–4.197; I 2 =44%). Conclusions Flecainide may be more effective treatment than digoxin as a first‐line treatment for fetal supraventricular tachycardia.

SummaryBackgroundThere are limited data to inform positioning of agents for treating moderate‐severe ulcerative colitis (UC).AimTo assess comparative efficacy and safety of different therapies as first‐line (biologic‐naïve) and second‐line (prior exposure to anti‐tumour necrosis factor(TNF)‐α) agents for moderate‐severe UC, through a systematic review and network meta‐analysis, and appraise quality of evidence (QoE) using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.MethodsWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with moderate‐severe UC treated with anti‐TNF agents, anti‐integrin agents and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as first‐line or second‐line agents, and compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction/maintenance of remission and mucosal healing; and safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. Network meta‐analyses were performed, and ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.ResultsIn biologic‐naïve patients (12 trials, no head‐to‐head comparisons), infliximab and vedolizumab were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (infliximab: odds ratio [OR], 4.10 [95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.58‐6.52]; SUCRA,0.85; vedolizumab:SUCRA,0.82) and mucosal healing (infliximab:SUCRA,0.91; vedolizumab:SUCRA,0.81) (moderate QoE). In patients with prior anti‐TNF exposure (4 trials, no head‐to‐head comparisons), tofacitinib was ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (OR, 11.88 [2.32‐60.89]; SUCRA, 0.96) and mucosal healing (moderate QoE). Differences in trial design limited comparability of trials of maintenance therapy for efficacy. Vedolizumab was ranked safest in terms of serious adverse events (SUCRA, 0.91), and infection (SUCRA, 0.75) in maintenance trials.ConclusionsInfliximab and vedolizumab are ranked highest as first‐line agents, and tofacitinib is ranked highest as second‐line agent, for induction of remission and mucosal healing in patients with moderate‐severe UC, based on indirect comparisons. Head‐to‐head trials are warranted to inform clinical decision‐making with greater confidence.

AbstractBackgroundThe implications of early readmission on long‐term mortality after transient ischemic attack (TIA) are not known. We aimed at examining the effect of 180‐day readmission on subsequent long‐term mortality after index hospitalization for TIA.MethodsA retrospective study of patients hospitalized for first‐ever TIA at Mayo Clinic from 2000 through 2017. Patients readmitted within 180 days postdischarge were compared with those not readmitted in long‐term risk of death.ResultsOf 251 TIA patients aged 73 ± 15 years with 1509 person‐years of follow‐up, 65 (26%) were readmitted within 180 days of discharge and 125 died during a median follow‐up of 5.7 years. The mortality was 10 vs. 7 deaths per 100 person‐years in patients who were readmitted compared to those who were not readmitted with hazard ratio (HR) 1.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–2.66). Other competing predictors of mortality were age ≥65 years (HR 5.70, 95% CI 2.72–11.96), cancer (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.03–3.38), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.07–3.38), heart failure (HR 3.03, 95% CI 1.82–5.06), dementia (HR 5.87, 95% CI 3.27–10.52), creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dl (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.17–3.06), and hemoglobin level <10 g/dl (HR 2.80, 95% CI 1.20–6.66).ConclusionsHospital readmission within 180 days of discharge from index TIA was associated with increased risk of death several years after initial readmission. Older age and several comorbidities identified during index hospitalization also confer increased risk for long‐term mortality.

Background and Purpose— There is currently controversy on the ideal anesthesia strategy during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA group) and those receiving either local anesthesia or conscious sedation (non-GA group). Methods— A literature search on anesthesia and endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke was performed. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes: recanalization rate, good functional outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Score≤2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death, vascular complications, respiratory complications, procedure time, and time to groin puncture. Results— Twenty-two studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies), including 4716 patients (1819 GA and 2897 non-GA) were included. In the nonadjusted analysis, patients in the GA group had higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66–2.45) and respiratory complications (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.22–2.37) and lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48–0.64) compared with the non-GA group. There was no difference in procedure time between the 2 primary comparison groups. When adjusting for baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, GA was still associated with lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29–0.94). When considering studies performed in the stent-retriever/aspiration era, there was no significant difference in good neurological outcome rates (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67–1.06). Conclusions— Acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing intra-arterial therapy may have worse outcomes when treated with GA as compared with conscious sedation/local anesthesia. However, major limitations of current evidence (ie, retrospective studies and selection bias) indicate a need for adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials to answer this question.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex disease most commonly arising in the background of chronic liver disease. In the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in our understanding of both the clinical and molecular heterogeneity of HCC. There has been a robust increase in clinical trial activity in patients with poor prognostic factors, such as macrovascular invasion and extrahepatic spread (EHS). We aimed to synthesize the evidence for the treatment of patients with advanced HCC based on these baseline characteristics, including patients with both Child‐Pugh (CP) scores of A and B. A comprehensive search of several databases from each database inception to February 15, 2016 any language was conducted. We included 14 studies (three randomized controlled studies [RCTs] and 11 observational studies). We included studies that compared sorafenib, transarterial bland embolization/transarterial chemoembolization, yttrium‐90/radiation therapy, ablation (or combination), and no therapy. Two RCTs comparing sorafenib to best supportive care demonstrated a consistent improvement in overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced HCC and metastatic vascular invasion (MVI) and/or EHS and CP A liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.51‐0.87]; I 2 = 0%). Several observational studies evaluated locoregional therapies alone or in combination with other treatments and were limited by very‐low‐quality of evidence. This was true for both patients with EHS and MVI. Conclusion : In patients with advanced HCC and CP A liver function, sorafenib is the only treatment that has been shown to improve OS in randomized studies. High‐quality data supporting the use of other treatment modalities in this setting, or in the setting of patients with less compensated (CP B) liver disease, are lacking. (H epatology 2018;67:422‐435)

Background Hospital discharge summaries enable communication between inpatient and outpatient physicians. Despite existing guidelines for discharge summaries, they are frequently suboptimal. Objective The aim of this study was to assess physicians’ perspectives about discharge summaries and the differences between summaries’ authors (hospitalists) and readers (primary care physicians [PCPs]). Methods A national survey of 1600 U.S. physicians was undertaken. Primary measures included physicians’ preferences in discharge summary standardization, content, format, and audience. Results A total of 815 physicians responded (response rate = 51%). Eighty-nine percent agreed that discharge summaries “should have a standardized format.” Most agreed that summaries should “document everything that was done, found, and recommended in the hospital” (64%) yet “only include details that are highly pertinent to the hospitalization” (66%). Although 74% perceived patients as an important audience of discharge summaries, only 43% agreed that summaries “should be written in language that patients…can easily understand,” and 68% agreed that it “should be written solely for provider-to-provider communication.” Compared with hospitalists, PCPs preferred comprehensive summaries (68% versus 59%, P = 0.002). More PCPs agreed that separate summaries should be created for patients and for provider-to-provider communication than hospitalists (60% versus 47%, P < 0.001). Compared with PCPs, more hospitalists believe that “hospitalists are too busy to prepare a high-quality discharge summary” (44% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and “PCPs have insufficient time to read an entire discharge summary” (60% versus 38%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Physicians believe that discharge summaries should have a standardized format but do not agree on how comprehensive or in what format they should be. Efforts are necessary to build consensus toward the ideal discharge summary.