Citations

AbstractObjectiveSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT‐PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID‐19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID‐19 research as well as corresponding implications of false‐negative and false‐positive results for clinicians and investigators.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses–Scoping Review (PRISMA‐ScR)–adherent synthesis of COVID‐19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020.ResultsA total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID‐19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID‐19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID‐19 patients. rRT‐PCR is currently considered the COVID‐19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false‐negatives rRT‐PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID‐19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT‐PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID‐19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID‐19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID‐19.ConclusionsWith the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID‐19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS‐CoV‐2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT‐PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus‐based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false‐negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

AbstractPatients with atrial fibrillation often undergo repeat catheter ablation for the recurrence of tachyarrhythmia. If the pulmonary veins were isolated in prior procedure, the operator should focus on substrate homogenization with identification and ablation of only arrhythmogenic areas.

Epidemiological studies propose a protective role for dietary fiber in colon cancer (CRC). One possible mechanism of fiber is its fermentation property in the gut and ability to change microbiota composition and function. Here, we investigate the role of a dietary fiber mixture in polyposis and elucidate potential mechanisms using TS4Cre × cAPCl°x468 mice. Stool microbiota profiling was performed, while functional prediction was done using PICRUSt. Stool short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) metabolites were measured. Histone acetylation and expression of SCFA butyrate receptor were assessed. We found that SCFA-producing bacteria were lower in the polyposis mice, suggesting a decline in the fermentation product of dietary fibers with polyposis. Next, a high fiber diet was given to polyposis mice, which significantly increased SCFA-producing bacteria as well as SCFA levels. This was associated with an increase in SCFA butyrate receptor and a significant decrease in polyposis. In conclusion, we found polyposis to be associated with dysbiotic microbiota characterized by a decline in SCFA-producing bacteria, which was targetable by high fiber treatment, leading to an increase in SCFA levels and amelioration of polyposis. The prebiotic activity of fiber, promoting beneficial bacteria, could be the key mechanism for the protective effects of fiber on colon carcinogenesis. SCFA-promoting fermentable fibers are a promising dietary intervention to prevent CRC.

Flex Tip Comparative AblationIntroductionNext‐generation catheters have been developed to reduce irrigation volume and preserve power delivery. A novel design uses a flexible tip (FlexAbility™ catheter) that directs flow to the contact surface. Because of recent safety issues with new catheters, we undertook a study in a canine heart with 3 irrigated catheters to compare efficacy and safety.MethodsEndocardial ablation was performed by 2 independent operators in 12 anesthetized canines with the FlexAbility (St. Jude Medical), ThermoCool™ (Biosense Webster), and ThermoCool™ SF (Biosense Webster) catheters. Endocardial RF lesions were delivered with each catheter in all 4 chambers of each animal for 52 ± 16 seconds. Each chamber was randomized to receive ablation from one catheter with recording of safety events. Cardiac pathology was performed with triphenyl tetrazolium chloride stain.ResultsAverage lesion dimensions were not significantly different between the 3 catheters. FlexAbility™ demonstrated a lower risk of steam pops relative to ThermoCool SF (P‐value = 0.013) despite equal mean power and radiofrequency time. High‐temperature generator shutdowns were observed with FlexAbility™ but not with either ThermoCool catheter. High‐temperature shutdowns were associated with larger average impedance drops (28.5 ohms vs. 19 ohms) without compromising lesion size.ConclusionsThe FlexAbility™ tip is safe and effective with no significant difference in lesion sizes compared to both standard ThermoCool and ThermoCool SF. FlexAbility™ has a significantly lower risk of steam pops compared to ThermoCool SF in a beating heart as defined predominantly by an abrupt rise of impedance.