Background: Hearing loss poses a significant public health challenge as a common chronic condition with many known side effects that are often worse when left untreated. Aural rehabilitation (AR) is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of interventions (e.g., informational counseling and perceptual training) designed to reduce deficits related to hearing loss that may stand alone or be used in combination as part of a holistic plan. Purpose: This evidence-based clinical practice guideline is intended to inform the implementation of person-centered AR to adults with hearing loss. Given the well-known benefits of sensory management, it was not included within the scope of this guideline. The recommendations aim to help clinicians, individuals with hearing loss, and other stakeholders make evidence-informed treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes, as well as provide payers and policymakers with information detailing a comprehensive approach to AR. Method: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and a multidisciplinary panel of subject matter experts prioritized key clinical questions and outcomes that served as the foundation of the guideline. The clinical recommendations were based on a comprehensive systematic review and a meta-analysis of 85 studies published between 1978 and 2021. Recommendations: Given the current state of the evidence, resource considerations, patient acceptability, clinical feasibility, and the overall balance of benefits and harms, ASHA developed several evidence-based recommendations for the provision of AR to adults with hearing loss. Each recommendation is accompanied by a series of key practice points to support its implementation within a person-centered framework.
Operative Staff Perspectives of Surgeon Coping with Intraoperative Errors: “Staying Calm Is #1”
Outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have improved over time. Studies have shown that total body irradiation (TBI) is the preferable type of myeloablative conditioning (MAC). However, outcomes based on central nervous system (CNS) involvement, namely CNS-positive versus CNS-negative, have not been compared. Here, we evaluated outcomes of 547 patients (CNS-positive = 96, CNS-negative = 451) who were allografted in the first complete remission (CR1) between 2009 and 2019. Primary endpoint was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Median follow-up was not different between the CNS-positive and CNS-negative groups (79 versus 67.2 months, P = 0.58). The CNS-positive group were younger (median age 31.3 versus 39.7 years, P = 0.004) and were allografted more recently (median year 2012 versus 2010, P = 0.003). In both groups, MAC was the preferred approach (82.3% versus 85.6%, P = 0.41). On multivariate analysis, the CNS-positive group had higher incidence of relapse (RI) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-2.35], P = 0.025), but no adverse effect on LFS (HR = 1.38 [95% CI = 0.99-1.92], P = 0.057) or overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.28 [95% CI = 0.89-1.85], P = 0.18). A subgroup multivariate analysis limited to CNS-positive patients showed that a TBI-based MAC regimen resulted in better LFS (HR = 0.43 [95% CI = 0.22-0.83], P = 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.44 [95% CI = 0.21-0.92], P = 0.03) and lower RI (HR = 0.35 [95% CI = 0.15-0.79], P = 0.01). Another subgroup analysis in CNS-negative patients showed that MAC-TBI preparative regimens also showed a lower RI without a benefit in LFS or OS. While a MAC-TBI allo-HCT regimen may not be suitable to all, particularly for older patients with comorbidities, this approach should be considered for patients who are deemed fit and able to tolerate.
Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients
Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.
Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma
Objective: To investigate the steps faculty surgeons take upon experiencing intraoperative error and synthesize these actions to offer a framework for coping with errors. Background: While intraoperative errors are inevitable, formal training in error recovery is insufficient and there are no established curricula that teach surgeons how to deal with the intraoperative error. This is problematic because insufficient error recovery is detrimental to both patient outcomes and surgeon psychological well-being. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis. One-hour in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with faculty surgeons from 3 hospitals. Surgeons described recent experiences with intraoperative error. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Analysis allowed for development of themes regarding responses to errors and coping strategies. Results: Twenty-seven surgeons (30% female) participated. Upon completion of the analysis, themes emerged in 3 distinct areas: (1) Exigency, or a need for training surgical learners how to cope with intraoperative errors, (2) Learning, or how faculty surgeons themselves learned to cope with intraoperative errors, and (3) Responses, or how surgeons now handle intraoperative errors. The latter category was organized into the STOPS framework: Intraoperative errors could produce STOPS: Stop, Talk to your Team, Obtain Help, Plan, Succeed. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides both novel insight into how surgeons cope with intraoperative errors and a framework that may be of great use to trainees and faculty alike.
Intraoperative Fluid Management a Modifiable Risk Factor for Surgical Quality – Improving Standardized Practice
Objective: We aimed to determine a safe zone of intraoperative fluid management associated with the lowest postoperative complication rates without increased acute kidney injury (AKi) risk for elective colorectal surgery patients. Background: To date, standard practice within institutions, let alone national expectations related to fluid administration, are limited. This fact has perpetuated a quality gap. Methods: Elective colorectal surgeries between 2018 and 2020 were included. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for postoperative ileus, prolonged LOS, and AKi were plotted against the rate of intraoperative RL infusion (mL/ kg/h) and total intraoperative volume. Binary logistic regression analysis, including fluid volumes as a confounder, was used to identify risk factors for postoperative complications. Results: A total of 2900 patients were identified. Of them, 503 (17.3%) patients had ileus, 772 (26.6%) patients had prolonged LOS, and 240 (8.3%) patients had AKI. The intraoperative fluid resuscitation rate (mg/kg/h) was less impactful on postoperative ileus, LOS, and AKI than the total amount of intraoperative fluid. A total fluid administration range between 300 mL and 2.7 L was associated with the lowest complication rate. Total intraoperative RL ≥2.7 L was independently associated with a higher risk of ileus (adjusted OR 1.465; 95% confidence interval 1.154–1.858) and prolonged LOS (adjusted OR 1.300; 95% confidence interval 1.047–1.613), but not AKI. Intraoperative RL ≤300 mL was not associated with an increased risk of AKI. Conclusion: Total intraoperative RL ≥2.7 L was independently associated with postoperative ileus and prolonged LOS in elective colorectal surgery patients. A new potential standard for intraoperative fluids will require anesthesia case planning (complexity and duration) to ensure total fluid volume meets this new opportunity to improve care.
Emergent and Urgent Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis in the United States in the Minimally Invasive and Biologic Era
BACKGROUND: Although the overall adoption of minimally invasive surgery in the nonemergent management of ulcerative colitis is established, little is known about its utilization in emergency settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess rates of urgent and emergent surgery over time in the era of emerging biologic therapies and to highlight the current practice in the United States regarding the utilization of minimally invasive surgery for urgent and emergent indications for ulcerative colitis. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis study. SETTINGS: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database. PATIENTS: All adult patients who underwent emergent or urgent colectomy for ulcerative colitis were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of emergency operations over time and utilization trends of minimally invasive surgery in urgent and emergent settings were assessed. Unadjusted and adjusted overall, surgical, and medical 30-day complication rates were compared between open and minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2219 patients were identified. Of those, 1515 patients (68.3%) underwent surgery in an urgent setting and 704 (31.7%) as an emergency. Emergent cases decreased over time (21% in 2006 to 8% in 2018; p < 0.0001). However, the rate of urgent surgeries has not significantly changed (42% in 2011 to 46% in 2018; p = 0.44). Minimally invasive surgery was offered to 70% of patients in the urgent group (1058/1515) and 22.6% of emergent indications (159/704). Overall, minimally invasive surgery was increasingly utilized over the study period in urgent (38% in 2011 to 71% in 2018; p < 0.0001) and emergent (0% in 2005 to 42% in 2018; p < 0.0001) groups. Compared to minimally invasive surgery, open surgery was associated with a higher risk of surgical, septic, and overall complications, and prolonged hospitalization. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature of the analysis. CONCLUSION: Based on a nationwide analysis from the United States, minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly and safely implemented for emergent and urgent indications for ulcerative colitis. Although the sum of emergent and urgent cases remained the same over the study period, emergency cases decreased significantly over the study period, which may be related to improved medical treatment options and a collaborative, specialized team approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B847. CIRUGÍA DE URGENCIA Y EMERGENCIA PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN LA ERA MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA Y DE TERAPIA BIOLÓGICA ANTECEDENTES: Si bien se ha establecido la adopción generalizada de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en el tratamiento electivo de la colitis ulcerosa, se sabe poco sobre su utilización en situaciones de emergencia. OBJETIVO: Evaluar las tasas de cirugía de urgencia a lo largo del tiempo en la era de las terapias biológicas emergentes y destacar la práctica actual en los Estados Unidos con respecto a la utilización de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva para las indicaciones de urgencia y emergencia de la colitis ulcerosa. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo. AJUSTES: Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes adultos que se sometieron a colectomía de emergencia o urgencia por colitis ulcerosa. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se evaluaron las tasas de operaciones de emergencia a lo largo del tiempo y las tendencias de utilización de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en entornos de urgencia y emergencia. Se compararon las tasas de complicaciones generales, quirúrgicas y médicas de 30 días no ajustadas y ajustadas entre la cirugía abierta y la mínimamente invasiva. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron un total de 2.219 pacientes. De ellos, 1.515 pacientes (68,3%) fueron intervenidos de urgencia y 704 (31,7%) de emergencia. Los casos emergentes disminuyeron con el tiempo (21% en 2006 a 8% en 2018; p <0,0001). Sin embargo, la tasa de cirugías urgentes no ha cambiado significativamente (42% en 2011 a 46% en 2018, p = 0,44). Se ofreció cirugía mínimamente invasiva al 70% de los pacientes del grupo urgente (1.058 / 1.515) y al 22,6% de las emergencias (159/704). En general, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se utilizó cada vez más durante el período de estudio en grupos urgentes (38% en 2011 a 71% en 2018; p <0,0001) y emergentes (0% en 2005 a 42% en 2018; p <0,0001). En comparación con la cirugía mínimamente invasiva, la cirugía abierta se asoció con un mayor riesgo de complicaciones generales, quirúrgicas, sépticas y hospitalización prolongada. LIMITACIONES: Carácter retrospectivo del análisis. CONCLUSIÓNES: Basado en un análisis nacional de los Estados Unidos, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se ha implementado de manera creciente y segura para las indicaciones emergentes y urgentes de la colitis ulcerosa. Si bien la suma de casos emergentes y urgentes permaneció igual durante el período de estudio, los casos de emergencia disminuyeron significativamente, lo que puede estar relacionado con mejores opciones de tratamiento médico y un enfoque de equipo colaborativo y especializado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B847. (Traducción—Dr. Felipe Bellolio)