Citations

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) amplitude parameters during cochlear implantation (CI) using a novel multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm. Methods A multi‐institutional, prospective cohort study was performed at 18 high‐volume CI centers. The inclusion criteria were adults with sensorineural hearing loss and audiometric thresholds of ≤ 90 dB hearing level at 500 Hz undergoing CI with Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA) Ultra 3D devices between 2024 and 2025. ECochG recordings were performed with simultaneous multi‐frequency stimulation of four frequencies between 125 and 4000 Hz during cochlear implant insertion. Concurrent multi‐frequency recording allowed extraction of amplitude and phase of each frequency individually. Post hoc analysis was performed to determine the difference in the number of drop alarms between single‐ and multi‐frequency ECochG. An ECochG amplitude drop of 6 dB was defined as a drop alarm. Insertion track patterns were compared between single‐ and multi‐frequency ECochG. Results One hundred ninety‐five ears were included. Mean number of drop alarms for the single‐frequency algorithm was 1.72 (95% CI: 1.52, 1.92; median 1) compared to 0.42 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.53; median 0) for multi‐frequency; p < 0.001. The number of Type C patterns (rise in amplitude during insertion followed by a drop) decreased with the multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm compared to the single‐frequency ECochG algorithm. The number of Type D patterns (no‐response) decreased, indicating that multi‐frequency ECochG generated more responses across the cochlea than single‐frequency ECochG. Conclusions A novel multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm during CI is associated with fewer drop alarms and altered insertion track patterns, which may provide a more accurate assessment of the cochlear microenvironment. Level of Evidence 3.

Purpose: To evaluate anatomic outcomes and surgeon response following the use of microserrated (Sharkskin, Alcon, Forth Worth, TX) internal limiting membrane (ILM) forceps compared with conventional (Grieshaber; Alcon) ILM forceps for peeling of the ILM. Methods: Patients were prospectively assigned in a 1:1 randomized fashion to undergo ILM peeling using microserrated forceps or conventional forceps. Rates of retinal hemorrhages, deep retinal grasps, ILM regrasping, time to ILM removal, and surgeon questionnaire comparing the use of microserrated and conventional ILM forceps were analyzed. Results: A total of 90 eyes of 90 patients were included in this study. The mean number of deep retinal grasps was higher in the conventional forceps group (1.51 ± 1.70 vs. 0.33 ± 0.56, respectively [P < 0.0001]). The mean number of failed ILM grasps was higher with conventional forceps (6.62 ± 3.51 vs. 5.18 ± 2.06 [P = 0.019]). Microserrated forceps provided more comfortability (lower number) in initiating the ILM flap (2.16 ± 0.85 vs. 1.56 ± 0.76, P < 0.001), comfortability in regrasping the ILM flap (2.51 ± 1.01 vs. 1.98 ± 0.89, P = 0.01), and comfortability in completing the ILM flap (2.42 ± 1.03 vs. 1.84 ± 1.02, P = 0.01). Conclusion: Surgeons utilizing the microserrated forceps experienced fewer deep retina grasps and fewer failed ILM grasps compared with conventional ILM forceps. The microserrated forceps was also a more favorable experience subjectively among the surgeons.

Abstract Background Time spent awaiting discharge after the acute need for hospitalization has resolved is an important potential contributor to hospital length of stay (LOS). Objective To measure the prevalence, impact, and context of patients who remain hospitalized for prolonged periods after completion of acute care needs. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross‐sectional “point‐in‐time” survey at each of 15 academic US hospitals using a structured data collection tool with on‐service acute care medicine attending physicians in fall 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were number and percentage of patients considered “medically ready for discharge” with emphasis on those who had experienced a “major barrier to discharge” (medically ready for discharge for ≥1 week). Estimated LOS attributable to major discharge barriers, contributory discharge needs, and associated hospital characteristics were measured. Results Of 1928 patients sampled, 35.0% ( n = 674) were medically ready for discharge including 9.8% ( n = 189) with major discharge barriers. Many patients with major discharge barriers (44.4%; 84/189) had spent a month or longer medically ready for discharge and commonly (84.1%; 159/189) required some form of skilled therapy or daily living support services for discharge. Higher proportions of patients experiencing major discharge barriers were found in public versus private, nonprofit hospitals (12.0% vs. 7.2%; p = .001) and county versus noncounty hospitals (14.5% vs. 8.8%; p = .002). Conclusions Patients experience major discharge barriers in many US hospitals and spend prolonged time awaiting discharge, often for support needs that may be outside of clinician control.

Background: Acute myocarditis is an inflammatory condition that may herald the onset of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) or arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM). We investigated the frequency and clinical consequences of DCM and ACM genetic variants in a population-based cohort of patients with acute myocarditis. Methods: This was a population-based cohort of 336 consecutive patients with acute myocarditis enrolled in London and Maastricht. All participants underwent targeted DNA sequencing for well-characterized cardiomyopathy-associated genes with comparison to healthy controls (n=1053) sequenced on the same platform. Case ascertainment in England was assessed against national hospital admission data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: Variants that would be considered pathogenic if found in a patient with DCM or ACM were identified in 8% of myocarditis cases compared with <1% of healthy controls ( P =0.0097). In the London cohort (n=230; median age, 33 years; 84% men), patients were representative of national myocarditis admissions (median age, 32 years; 71% men; 66% case ascertainment), and there was enrichment of rare truncating variants (tv) in ACM-associated genes (3.1% of cases versus 0.4% of controls; odds ratio, 8.2; P =0.001). This was driven predominantly by DSP -tv in patients with normal LV ejection fraction and ventricular arrhythmia. In Maastricht (n=106; median age, 54 years; 61% men), there was enrichment of rare truncating variants in DCM-associated genes, particularly TTN -tv, found in 7% (all with left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) compared with 1% in controls (odds ratio, 3.6; P =0.0116). Across both cohorts over a median of 5.0 years (interquartile range, 3.9–7.8 years), all-cause mortality was 5.4%. Two-thirds of deaths were cardiovascular, attributable to worsening heart failure (92%) or sudden cardiac death (8%). The 5-year mortality risk was 3.3% in genotype-negative patients versus 11.1% for genotype-positive patients ( P adjusted =0.08). Conclusions: We identified DCM- or ACM-associated genetic variants in 8% of patients with acute myocarditis. This was dominated by the identification of DSP -tv in those with normal left ventricular ejection fraction and TTN -tv in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Despite differences between cohorts, these variants have clinical implications for treatment, risk stratification, and family screening. Genetic counseling and testing should be considered in patients with acute myocarditis to help reassure the majority while improving the management of those with an underlying genetic variant.

Abstract Objectives Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from appendiceal cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) has significant morbidity and limited survival. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach to treat PM. We aim to conduct a dose-escalation trial of mitomycin C (MMC)-PIPAC combined with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI) in patients with PM from appendiceal cancer or CRC. Methods This is a multicenter Phase I study of MMC-PIPAC (NCT04329494). Inclusion criteria include treatment with at least 4 months of first- or second-line systemic chemotherapy with ineligibility for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Exclusion criteria are: progression on chemotherapy; extraperitoneal metastases; systemic chemotherapy intolerance; bowel obstruction; or poor performance status (ECOG>2). Escalating MMC-PIPAC doses (7–25 mg/m 2 ) will be administered in combination with standard dose systemic FOLFIRI. Safety evaluation will be performed on 15 patients (dose escalation) and six expansion patients: 21 evaluable patients total. Results The primary endpoints are recommended MMC dose and safety of MMC-PIPAC with FOLFIRI. Secondary endpoints are assessment of response (by peritoneal regression grade score; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST 1.1], and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), progression free survival, overall survival, technical failure rate, surgical complications, conversion to curative-intent CRS-HIPEC, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Longitudinal blood and tissue specimens will be collected for translational correlatives including pharmacokinetics, circulating biomarkers, immune profiling, and single-cell transcriptomics. Conclusions This Phase I trial will establish the recommended dose of MMC-PIPAC in combination with FOLFIRI. Additionally, we expect to detect an early efficacy signal for further development of this therapeutic combination.

125 Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is being evaluated as a novel minimally invasive palliative treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM). Prior studies have established the feasibility and safety of repeated PIPAC treatments in gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancers. The goal of the present phase 1 trial was to establish the safety and feasibility of PIPAC oxaliplatin in a highly chemotherapy refractory colorectal and appendiceal cancer patient population. Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven peritoneal metastases from colorectal or appendiceal cancer underwent up to three PIPAC treatments using oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) with a six-week interval at two academic centers. Patients with bowel obstruction, extra-peritoneal metastases, or poor performance status (ECOG>2) were excluded. PIPAC was nebulized over 5 min with a 30 min aerosol dwell time. Apart from the first PIPAC cycle, the patients also received a sensitizing dose of 5FU/LV (400mg/m2) within 24 hours of the procedure. Primary end point was safety as assessed by dose limiting toxicities within 6 weeks of the first PIPAC. Secondary endpoints included safety with the addition of 5FU/LV, efficacy, surgical morbidity, technical failure rate, progression-free and overall survival, pharmacokinetics (PK), and quality of life assessment. Results: A total of 8 patients were included: 5 colorectal; and 3 appendiceal. Median number of prior chemotherapy cycles was 2 (Interquartile range – IQR; 1.5-3.5). All patients were refractory to systemic oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median time from diagnosis to PIPAC was 16 months (IQR; 5.6, 17.5) and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index was 29 (IQR; 20.5, 31.5). Five (62.5%) patients completed 3 PIPAC cycles while in 3 (37.5%) patients PIPAC was discontinued due to disease progression within the peritoneal cavity. No surgical complication or dose limiting toxicity was observed. Only one patient developed grade 3 treatment-related toxicity after first PIPAC (anemia), and another patient after second PIPAC (abdominal pain and anemia). At the completion of PIPAC treatment 5 patients had stable disease and 3 had disease progression. Pharmacokinetic, histologic response and preliminary survival data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: PIPAC with oxaliplatin is safe and feasible in a highly chemotherapy refractory cohort of appendiceal and colorectal carcinomatosis patients with or without sensitizing 5-FU/ LV. Clinical trial information: NCT04329494.

Abstract Background and study aims Little is known about the learning curve for image interpretation in volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) in Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The goal of this study was to calculate the learning curve, competence of image interpretation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of VLE among novice users. Methods 31 novice users viewed 96 VLE images electronically at three academic institutions after a brief training session. There were 24 images of each histologic type: normal gastric cardia, normal esophageal squamous epithelium, non-neoplastic BE, and neoplastic BE. The users were asked to identify the correct tissue type and level of confidence. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) technique was used to construct a learning curve. Results 22 (71 %) of the physicians achieved VLE interpretation competency during their 96-slide review. Half of the physicians achieved competency at 65 images (95 % confidence interval [CI] 45 – 85). There was a statistically significant association between confidence in diagnosis and selecting the correct histologic tissue type (P < 0.001). The median accuracy for esophageal squamous epithelium, normal gastric cardia, non-neoplastic BE, and neoplastic BE was 96 % (95 %CI 95 % – 96 %), 95 % (95 %CI 94 % – 96 %), 90 % (95 %CI 88 % – 91 %), 96 % (95 %CI 95 % – 96 %). The overall accuracy was 95 % (95 %CI 93 % – 95 %). Conclusion The majority of novice users achieved competence in image interpretation of VLE for BE, using a pre-selected image set, with a favorable learning curve after a brief training session. An electronic review of VLE images, prior to real-time use of VLE, is encouraged.