Citations

Introduction Propofol is a widely used sedative-hypnotic agent for critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Despite its clinical benefits, propofol is associated with increased risks of hypertriglyceridemia. Early identification of patients at risk for propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia is crucial for optimising sedation strategies and preventing adverse outcomes. Machine-learning (ML) models offer a promising approach for predicting individualised patient risks of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia. Methods and analysis We propose the development of an ML model aimed at predicting the risk of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia in ICU patients receiving IMV. The study will use retrospective data from four Mayo Clinic sites. Nested cross validation (CV) will be employed, with a tenfold inner CV loop for model tuning and selection as well as an outer loop using leave-one-site-out CV for external validation. Feature selection will be conducted using Boruta and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-penalised logistic regression. Data preprocessing steps include missing data imputation, feature scaling and dimensionality reduction techniques. Six ML algorithms will be tuned and evaluated. Bayesian optimisation will be used for hyperparameter selection. Global model explainability will be assessed using permutation importance, and local model explainability will be assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations. Ethics and dissemination The proposed ML model aims to provide a reliable and interpretable tool for clinicians to predict the risk of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia in ICU patients. The final model will be deployed in a web-based clinical risk calculator. The model development process and performance measures obtained during nested CV will be described in a study publication to be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. The proposed study has received ethics approval from the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB #23–0 07 416).

ABSTRACT Background In recent years, transcatheter implantation devices to restrict pulmonary arterial flow have emerged as a potential alternative to surgical pulmonary artery banding. Case Presentation A term male was diagnosed with critical aortic stenosis (AS) and severely reduced left ventricle (LV) systolic function. He underwent aortic balloon valvuloplasty on day 2 of life, resulting in some antegrade flow, but LV ejection fraction only improved to 15%. He remained ductal dependent for systemic perfusion. Pulmonary over‐circulation ensued with systemic steal evident in his second week of life. On day 14, he underwent a transcatheter stage 1 procedure including the placement of bilateral pulmonary flow restrictor (PFR) devices and ductal stenting. Post‐procedure, he improved clinically, weaned off respiratory support, and transitioned to oral feeds while awaiting cardiac transplant. Twelve days later, he received a donor heart, with an uneventful recovery. He is now 3 years post‐transplant and has excellent graft function, and his transplant course has been unremarkable. Conclusion Transcatheter‐based palliation for a neonate with critical AS, utilizing endoluminal PFRs, proved effective in stabilizing the infant and successfully bridging him to transplant. This highlights an opportunity for the utilization of PFRs in neonatal conditions where control of pulmonary blood flow is imperative as a bridge to transplantation.

Abstract Introduction Selective angioembolization for high flow priapism (Step-by-step guide). Aim Describe the indications and techniques of angioembolization for high flow priapism. Methods We outline patient selection, preparation, technique, outcomes, and potential complications of angioembolization for high flow priapism as supported by the literature. Main outcome measure The effectiveness of embolization for treating high flow priapism. Results Transarterial embolization is minimally invasive, low risk, and effective method from managing high flow priapism. Success rates range from 70% to 87% depending on the type of agent used for embolization. Side effects include erectile dysfunction with a reported rate of 7%-19%. Complications may be mitigated by embolizing as selectively as possible and using temporary embolic agents. Conclusion Embolization is a safe and effective treatment for nonischemic, high flow priapism in patients who have not responded to conservative management.

Purpose To compare the surgical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring autograft (HA) plus lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET), isolated all‐soft tissue quadriceps autograft (QA), and isolated HA. Methods A retrospective review was performed comparing high‐risk patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with isolated HA, isolated QA, or HA + LET from August 2013 to January 2023. High‐risk patients, as determined by high‐grade pivot shift or generalized ligament laxity, with at least a 2‐year follow‐up, were included. Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were compared at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Retear rate, postoperative pivot‐shift grade, return to sport, and complications were recorded. Results In total, 159 patients (56 HA, 47 HA + LET, and 56 QA) were included. At 6 months postoperatively, the HA International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly lower than that of the HA + LET and QA groups ( P < .0001). Similarly, the Lysholm score was significantly lower in the HA cohort at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively ( P < .0001‐.02). There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimally important clinical difference between the cohorts for either of these outcome scores. The retear rate was significantly higher in the HA group (17.9%) compared to the HA + LET (4.3%) and QA (1.8%) cohorts ( P = .01). The rate of postoperative pivot shift of grade 2 or more was also higher in the isolated HA group ( P = .04). Conclusions The use of an all‐soft tissue QA or HA + LET for ACL reconstruction resulted in a lower retear rate and postoperative pivot‐shift grade compared to an isolated HA graft in high‐risk patients at 2 years postoperatively. There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference between the cohorts. The QA and HA + LET reconstruction options may improve stability and decrease the failure rate compared with HA reconstruction alone. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly used in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with reliable clinical improvement. Lateralized RSA implants have conferred superior outcomes compared with the original Grammont design in patients with nontraumatic indications. However, in the setting of a PHF, lateralized components can place increased tension across the tuberosity fracture site and potentially compromise tuberosity healing and outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the effect of implant design on clinical outcomes after RSA for PHFs. Methods: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for clinical studies on RSA performed for PHFs that reported implant manufacturer details. Our primary outcomes included postoperative external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), abduction, Constant score, rate of greater tuberosity (GT) healing, and the incidence of complications compared between medialized vs. lateralized global implant design. Results: Globally lateralized RSA cohorts (478 RSAs total with cumulative lateral offset achieved through humeral or glenoid lateralization or both humeral and glenoid lateralization) were found to have a greater mean postoperative Constant score compared with globally medialized (medialized glenoid and medialized humerus) RSA cohorts with 1,494 total medialized RSAs (66 vs. 59, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference regarding mean postoperative ER (30° vs. 22°, p = 0.078), FE (117° vs. 119°, p = 0.708), or abduction (103° vs. 107°, p = 0.377). On meta-regression, neither implant design nor tuberosity status significantly influenced postoperative ER, FE, abduction, or Constant score on meta-regression independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. The rate of GT healing was greater in lateralized compared with medialized RSAs (88% vs. 72%, p < 0.001). On meta-regression, medialized RSA design was associated with a 73% lower odds of GT healing (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.68, p = 0.007) independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. Conclusion: Lateralized RSA implants conferred no significant functional benefit over medialized implants when used in patients with PHFs. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.