Citations

Three-dimensional radiomic analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis outperformed two-dimensional measures in breast cancer risk assessment.

Purpose To develop an expert consensus statement on the diagnosis, management, and rehabilitation of medial meniscal root tears (MMRTs) using a modified Delphi technique. Methods A working group developed statements on MMRT diagnosis, nonoperative management, surgical indications, surgical management, alignment, and rehabilitation using modified Delphi techniques. Fifty‐six experts were surveyed over 3 rounds to reach consensus, with agreement measured on a 5‐point Likert scale. Statements were included, revised, or excluded on the basis of predefined thresholds (≥75% agreement, <20% disagreement). Experts suggested revisions or new statements in the first 2 rounds, and final consensus statements were included. Results All 56 experts completed 3 survey rounds. Experts agreed that root tears may occur with no known history of trauma, typically in older patients, and that it should be diagnosed with an magnetic resonance imaging. In symptomatic patients with MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique (performing a pie‐crusting technique can be helpful for visualization). Nonoperative management is advised for patients with advanced osteoarthritis. High tibial osteotomy may be considered for significant varus malalignment during MMRT repair. The only statement without consensus was the management of asymptomatic MMRTs with mild medial compartment cartilage wear, indicating ongoing debate. Conclusions Overall, 98% of statements reached consensus. There is agreement that magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard for diagnosis. Symptomatic MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired early using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique. End‐stage knee osteoarthritis warrants nonoperative management of MMRTs, and a structured postoperative protocol with limited weightbearing and range of motion is essential after repair. No agreement was reached on managing asymptomatic MMRTs in patients without significant medial compartment degeneration. Meniscal centralization sutures may help in cases of substantial extrusion, but their routine use is debated. Level of Evidence Level V, consensus of expert opinion.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of using a traditional computed tomography (CT) simulation scan in the Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™ workflow for stereotactic radiosurgery. We compared two workflows, one involving a traditional CT simulation co-registered with the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) (MRI-CT-CBCT) and another without the CT scan, co-registering the MRI directly with CBCT (MRI-CBCT). The cohort included 50 frame-based (54 targets) and 55 frameless (124 targets) patients treated between August 2020 and December 2022. Target coverage was assessed by the percentage of each target covered by the prescription isodose line. The mean coverage differences for the frame-based and frameless cohorts were −1.20% ± 1.43% and −1.06% ± 1.51%, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals of −1.59, −0.81 and −1.32, −0.79. The MRI-CBCT workflow was deemed noninferior to the MRI-CT-CBCT workflow. Our data indicate that both workflows yield similar results, suggesting that a traditional CT simulation scan is unnecessary.

ImportanceSystemic antibiotic use for patients with a non–Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major risk factor for recurrent CDI. Increasing use of oral vancomycin for secondary prophylaxis against recurrent CDI in this context has uncertain efficacy.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether oral vancomycin prophylaxis compared with placebo is effective against recurrent CDI during and 8 weeks after the end of study treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in 4 large health systems across the upper Midwest US. Adults who had completed treatment for CDI within the past 180 days and were taking a systemic antibiotic for a non-CDI indication were enrolled between May 21, 2018, and March 30, 2023, and followed up for 8 weeks after the end of study treatment.InterventionParticipants were randomized 1:1 to 125 mg of oral vancomycin or placebo once daily during antibiotic use for a non-CDI plus 5 days following cessation of those antibiotics.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was recurrent CDI incidence during treatment and the 8-week follow-up period. The secondary outcome was vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus carriage in stool.ResultsAmong 81 randomized participants (median age, 59 years [IQR, 50-67 years]), all were included in the primary as-randomized analysis (39 in the vancomycin group; 42 in the placebo group). Sixty patients (74.1%) completed 8-week follow-up and were included in the secondary as–completed treatment analysis (31 in the vancomycin group; 29 in the placebo group). Recurrent CDI occurred in 17 of 39 participants in the oral vancomycin group (43.6%) and 24 of 42 in the placebo group (57.1%; absolute difference in percentage, −13.5% [95% CI, −35.1% to 8.0%]). Adverse events occurred in 27 of 39 participants in the oral vancomycin group (69.2%) and 27 of 42 in the placebo group (64.3%). Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus carriage was found in 15 of 30 patients in the oral vancomycin group (50.0%) and 6 of 25 in the placebo group (24.0%) (P = .048) 8 weeks after treatment.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, the incidence of recurrent CDI was lower (though did not reach significance) in participants taking oral vancomycin compared with those taking placebo. Because the study was underpowered, it was unable to reveal firm conclusions about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of vancomycin prophylaxis with respect to recurrent CDI.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03462459

OBJECTIVE Coexisting medical conditions are increasingly prevalent in surgical populations. The impact of multiple comorbidities on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and endotypes of frequently co-occurring conditions for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) remain unclear. This study explores whether CSM patients with multimorbidity have worse baseline and postoperative PROs and less functional improvement after surgery compared to those with few or no comorbidities. The authors also investigated whether distinct comorbidity endotypes exist among CSM surgical patients and whether they influence postoperative outcomes. METHODS The prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was used to assess patients undergoing surgery for CSM. Multimorbidity was defined as ≥ 2 chronic conditions, including diabetes, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, chronic renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, depression, and anxiety. Baseline characteristics and 24-month PROs were assessed across multiple-comorbidity status, including modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale for neck and arm pain, EQ-5D, and patient satisfaction scores. Clusters were identified from the full cohort using k-medoids, revealing subgroups with similar comorbidity endotypes. RESULTS The final cohort included 1141 CSM patients (83.1% reaching 24-month follow-up), with 761 (66.7%) having 0 or 1 comorbidity and 380 (33.3%) ≥ 2 comorbidities. The multimorbidity cohort was older (mean age 62.6 ± 11.2 vs 59.5 ± 12.0 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be female (52.9% vs 44.7%, p = 0.011), and had a higher BMI (mean 31.1 ± 6.7 vs 29.7 ± 6.2 kg/m 2 , p < 0.001). Multimorbidity patients exhibited worse mJOA, NDI, and EQ-5D scores at baseline and 24 months (p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, the total number of comorbidities was not significantly associated with any PRO measures. Four comorbidity clusters were identified: low burden, arthritis, diabetes, and high burden. On one-way ANOVA, the baseline mJOA score was significantly different across clusters (p = 0.003). At 24 months, the mJOA score was significantly lower in the diabetes and high-burden endotypes. Twenty-four-month score change and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement of all PROs remained similar across clusters (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS While patients with multimorbidity have worse baseline and postoperative PROs, they achieve similar functional and pain-related improvements following CSM surgery. Similarly, the comorbidity endotypes identified in this QOD cohort suggest that certain patterns of coexisting chronic conditions, such as overlapping diabetes and arthritis, are associated with different levels of disability but may not diminish the effectiveness of surgical intervention.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

Background Statin Choice is a shared decision-making encounter tool embedded in the electronic health record. Objective To describe the association between the use of Statin Choice, statin prescriptions by clinicians, prescription fills (primary adherence), and statin adherence at 12 mo (secondary adherence). Design Observational cohort study at the Cleveland Clinic Health System. Subjects Statin-naïve adults aged 40 to 75 y with a 10-y atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk of ≥5% and a primary care appointment between January 2020 and July 2021. Main Measures The primary exposure was the use of Statin Choice during a clinical encounter. We measured whether the use of Statin Choice was associated with statin prescriptions. We measured statin adherence based on pharmacy fill data at 60 d (primary adherence) and 12 mo (secondary adherence). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of statin prescriptions and adherence at the 3 time points by the use of Statin Choice. Key Results Among 17,001 statin-naïve patients, 13% viewed Statin Choice and 7% were prescribed a statin. The median ASCVD risk was 10%. Patients who were shown Statin Choice had 9.04 higher odds of being prescribed a statin compared with patients not shown Statin Choice (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.86–10.4). Among patients prescribed a statin, the use of Statin Choice was associated with 5.75 higher odds of primary adherence compared with usual care (95% CI: 4.22–7.83). At 12 mo, Statin Choice use was significantly associated with adherence in the unadjusted analysis (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.05–2.08) but was not significant after adjustment for patient factors. Patients shown Statin Choice had an average of 12 mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 mo (95% CI: −16 mg/dL, −10) compared with those not shown Statin Choice. Conclusion In this observational study, Statin Choice use was strongly associated with statin prescription and fills and weakly associated with adherence to statins for up to 1 y. A randomized trial is needed to confirm causality. Highlights Statin Choice is an electronic health record–embedded shared decision-making encounter tool available for free in many health care systems. Small randomized controlled trials have found modest associations between the use of Statin Choice and statin adherence using patient-reported data. In our large study using pharmacy fill data, clinician use of Statin Choice during a medical encounter was associated with significantly greater patient adherence with statins up to 1 y later. Exposure to Statin Choice was associated with a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol over 1 y.

Objectives: To compare thresholds and accuracies of FIB-4, vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), point shear wave elastography (pSWE), 2D shear wave elastography (2D-SWE), and MR elastography (MRE) for detecting hepatic fibrosis in patients with MASLD. Materials and Methods: Systematic searching of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the gray literature from inception to March 2024 was performed. Studies evaluating accuracies of FIB-4, VCTE, 2D-SWE, pSWE, and/or MRE for detecting significant (≥F2) and/or advanced (≥F3) hepatic fibrosis in MASLD patients compared to histology were identified. Full-text review and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Multivariate meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed using index test and fibrosis grading. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: 207 studies with over 80,000 patient investigations were included. FIB-4 1.3 threshold sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 66–75%) for detecting advanced hepatic fibrosis, which improved to 88% (85–91%) using a <0.75 threshold. FIB-4 specificity using a 2.67 threshold was 96% (94–97%). Sensitivities of 88–91% were achieved using thresholds of 3.2 kPa for pSWE, 4.92 kPa for 2D-SWE, 7.18 kPa for VCTE, and 2.32 kPa for MRE. No significant differences were identified for sensitivities in subgroup analysis with thresholds between 7 and 9 kPa. Most imaging-based studies were high risk of bias for the index test. Conclusions: A FIB-4 threshold of <0.75 and modality-dependent thresholds (VCTE < 7 kPa; pSWE <3 kPa; 2D-SWE <5 kPa; and MRE <2.5 kPa) would achieve sensitivities of around 90% when defining low-risk MASLD in population screening. A modified two-tier algorithm aligning with existing Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound guidelines would improve risk stratification accuracies compared to existing guidelines by European and American liver societies.

11pt, fleqn, a4paper, ]LegrandOrangeBook Background: Early catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) improves outcomes, but the optimal timing, especially in heart failure (HF) subtypes, remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the impact of ablation timing on outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: We used the TriNetX database (2010–2024) to identify HF patients with AF who underwent ablation. Patients were classified as early ablation (≤1 year of first AF diagnosis) or delayed ablation (1–3 years), with propensity score matching (PSM) applied to balance the baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was AF recurrence, defined by repeat ablation, direct current cardioversion (DCCV), or antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) use after a 3-month blanking period. Secondary outcomes included stroke, hospitalization, and mortality over 5 years. Results: After PSM, delayed ablation was associated with higher AF recurrence in both HFrEF (HR 1.25, p < 0.001) and HFpEF (HR 1.27, p = 0.01), as seen in multivariate analysis. In HFrEF, delayed ablation was associated with higher incidence of re-do ablation, AAD use, and DCCV, while in HFpEF, higher recurrence with delayed ablation was associated with increased AAD use. Both cohorts had similar stroke and mortality rates between early and delayed ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed ablation in HFrEF and HFpEF was linked to higher AF recurrence, driven by increased redo ablations, DCCV, AAD use in HFrEF, and higher AAD use in HFpEF. Stroke and mortality rates were similar, suggesting earlier ablation may enhance rhythm control without affecting long-term survival. Condensed Abstract Delayed atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation was associated with higher (AF) recurrence in both HFrEF and HFpEF. In HFrEF, delayed ablation led to increased use of re-do ablation, cardioversion and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). In HFpEF, only AAD use was significantly higher with delayed ablation. Stroke and mortality rates were similar between early and delayed ablation groups.