Citations

Abstract Background In contrast to bloodstream infection due to a variety of bacteria in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED), there are limited data regarding candidemia and risk of CIED infection. Methods All patients with candidemia and a CIED at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 2012 and 2019 were reviewed. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection was defined by (1) clinical signs of pocket site infection or (2) echocardiographic evidence of lead vegetations. Results A total of 23 patients with candidemia had underlying CIED; 9 (39.1%) cases were community onset. None of the patients had pocket site infection. The duration between CIED placement and candidemia was prolonged (median 3.5 years; interquartile range, 2.0–6.5). Only 7 (30.4%) patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography and 2 of 7 (28.6%) had lead masses. Only the 2 patients with lead masses underwent CIED extraction, but device cultures were negative for Candida species. Two (33.3%) of 6 other patients who were managed as candidemia without device infection subsequently developed relapsing candidemia. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device removal was done in both patients and device cultures grew Candida species. Although 17.4% of patients were ultimately confirmed to have CIED infection, CIED infection status was undefined in 52.2%. Overall, 17 (73.9%) patients died within 90 days of diagnosis of candidemia. Conclusions Although current international guidelines recommend CIED removal in patients with candidemia, the optimal management strategy remains undefined. This is problematic because candidemia alone is associated with increased morbidity and mortality as seen in this cohort. Moreover, inappropriate device removal or retention can both result in increased patient morbidity and mortality.

Abstract Over the last several decades, periprosthetic joint infection has been increasing in incidence and is occurring in more complex patients. While there have been advances in both surgical and medical treatment strategies, there remain important gaps in our understanding. Here, we share our current approaches to the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection, focusing on frequent clinical challenges and collaborative interdisciplinary care.

SummaryBackgroundThere is limited real‐world data on comparative effectiveness of different biologic or small molecule agents as second‐line therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior exposure to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi‐institutional database to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib, vedolizumab and ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior exposure to a TNFi. Failure of medical therapy was defined as a composite outcome of intravenous steroids or colectomy within 2 years. One‐to‐one propensity score matching was performed for demographics, disease extent, mean haemoglobin, C‐reactive protein, albumin and calprotectin, prior IBD medications and steroid use between cohorts.ResultsAmong 2141 patients with UC and prior exposure to TNFi, 348 (16.2%), 716 (33.4%) and 1077 (50.3%) were switched to tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. After propensity‐score matching, there was no difference in the composite outcome (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55–1.07) but higher risk of colectomy (aOR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.31–5.50) in the tofacitinib cohort than the vedolizumab cohort. There was no difference in the risk of composite outcome (aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.89–1.86) but higher risk of colectomy (aOR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.24–5.58) in the tofacitinib cohort than the ustekinumab cohort. The vedolizumab cohort had a higher risk of composite outcome (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.29–2.16) than the ustekinumab cohort.ConclusionUstekinumab might be the preferred second‐line therapy over tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with UC that were previously exposed to a TNFi.

Abstract Bariatric surgeries are often complicated by de-novo gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or worsening of pre-existing GERD. The growing rates of obesity and bariatric surgeries worldwide are paralleled by an increase in the number of patients requiring post-surgical GERD evaluation. However, there is currently no standardized approach for the assessment of GERD in these patients. In this review, we delineate the relationship between GERD and the most common bariatric surgeries: sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), with a focus on pathophysiology, objective assessment, and underlying anatomical and motility disturbances. We suggest a stepwise algorithm to help diagnose GERD after SG and RYGB, determine the underlying cause, and guide the management and treatment.

As experienced authors, statisticians, editors, and scientists, we present the following comments to highlight some usages or omissions that are common in research manuscripts. Consideration of these comments will improve practices of data analysis and reporting.

AbstractIntroductionWe examined neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and psychotropic medication use in a large sample of individuals with early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD; onset 40‐64 years) at the midway point of data collection for the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS).MethodsBaseline NPS (Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Questionnaire; Geriatric Depression Scale) and psychotropic medication use from 282 participants enrolled in LEADS were compared across diagnostic groups – amyloid‐positive EOAD (n = 212) and amyloid negative early‐onset non‐Alzheimer's disease (EOnonAD; n = 70).ResultsAffective behaviors were the most common NPS in EOAD at similar frequencies to EOnonAD. Tension and impulse control behaviors were more common in EOnonAD. A minority of participants were using psychotropic medications, and use was higher in EOnonAD.DiscussionOverall NPS burden and psychotropic medication use were higher in EOnonAD than EOAD participants. Future research will investigate moderators and etiological drivers of NPS, and NPS differences in EOAD versus late‐onset AD.