Evaluating the Diabetes-Cardiology interface: a glimpse into the diabetes management of cardiology inpatients in western Sydney's 'diabetes hotspot' and the establishment of a novel model of care.

BACKGROUND: Approximately two-thirds of individuals presenting to emergency departments in Western Sydney have glucose dysregulation, accelerating their risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We evaluated the prevalence and management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in cardiology inpatients in Western Sydney. A novel model of care between diabetes and cardiology specialist hospital teams (joint specialist case conferencing, JSCC) is described herein and aimed at aligning clinical services and upskilling both teams in the management of the cardiology inpatient with comorbid T2D. METHODS: Cardiology inpatients at Blacktown-Mount Druitt Hospital were audited during a 1-month period. RESULTS: 233 patients were included, mean age 64 ± 16 years, 60% were male, 27% overweight and 35% obese. Known T2D comprised 36% (n = 84), whereas 6% (n = 15) had a new diagnosis of T2D, of which none of the latter were referred for inpatient/outpatient diabetes review. Approximately, 27% (n = 23) and 7% (n = 6) of known diabetes patients suffered hyper- and hypoglycaemia, respectively, and 51% (n = 43) had sub-optimally controlled T2D (i.e. HbA1c > 7.0%); over half (51%, n = 51) had coronary artery disease. Only two patients were treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor and no patients were on glucagon like peptide-1 receptor analogues. The majority were managed with metformin (62%) and therapies with high hypoglycaemic potential (e.g., sulfonylureas (29%)) and in those patients treated with insulin, premixed insulin was used in the majority of cases (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Undiagnosed T2D is prevalent and neglected in cardiology inpatients. Few patients with comorbid T2D and CVD were managed with therapies of proven cardiac and mortality benefit. Novel models of care may be beneficial in this high-risk group of patients and discussed herein is the establishment of the diabetes-cardiology JSCC service delivery model which has been established at our institution.

A meta-analysis of robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The present study is the first meta-analysis to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery in patients with degenerative mitral valve disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery. Predefined primary endpoints included mortality, stroke and reoperation for bleeding. Secondary endpoints included cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, length of hospitalization and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Echocardiographic outcomes were assessed when possible. RESULTS: Six relevant retrospective studies with comparative data for robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery were identified from the existing literature. Meta-analysis demonstrated a superior perioperative survival outcome for patients who underwent robotic surgery. Incidences of stroke and reoperation were not statistically different between the two treatment arms. Patients who underwent robotic surgery required a significantly longer period of cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time. However, the lengths of hospitalization and ICU stay were not significantly different. Both surgical techniques appeared to achieve satisfactory echocardiographic outcomes in the majority of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on comparative outcomes of robotic vs. conventional mitral surgery is limited, and results of the present meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to differing patient characteristics. However, it has been demonstrated that robotic mitral valve surgery can be safely performed by expert surgeons for selected patients. A successful robotic program is dependent on a specially trained team and a sufficient volume of referrals to attain and maintain safety.

Systematic review of percutaneous interventions for malignant pericardial effusion.

The present systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of percutaneous interventions for malignant pericardial effusion (MPE), with primary endpoint of recurrence of pericardial effusion. Electronic searches of six databases identified thirty-one studies, reporting outcomes following isolated pericardiocentesis (n=305), pericardiocentesis followed by extended catheter drainage (n=486), pericardial instillation of sclerosing agents (n=392) or percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy (PBP) (n=157). Isolated pericardiocentesis demonstrated a pooled recurrence rate of 38.3%. Pooled recurrence rates for extended catheter drainage, pericardial sclerosis and PBP were 12.1%, 10.8% and 10.3%, respectively. Procedure-related mortality ranged from 0.5-1.0% across the percutaneous interventions. Although isolated pericardiocentesis can safely deliver immediate symptomatic relief, subsequent catheter drainage or sclerotherapy are required to minimize recurrence. PBP has been shown to be highly effective and may be particularly useful in managing recurrent effusions. Ultimately, the choice of intervention must be based on the clinical status of patients, their underlying malignancy and the expertise available.

Could less be more?-A systematic review and meta-analysis of sublobar resections versus lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer according to patient selection.

OBJECTIVES: There is renewed interest in performing segmentectomies and wedge resections for selected patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, comparative data on sublobar resections versus lobectomies include 'intentionally selected' patients who could tolerate either procedure, or 'compromised' patients who could only undergo sublobar resections due to significant comorbidities or insufficient cardiopulmonary reserve. To address this important point, the present meta-analysis aimed to compare the survival outcomes of sublobar resections and segmentectomies versus lobectomies based on patient selection and surgical intent. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using 6 online databases to identify all comparative studies that presented survival data on sublobar resections versus lobectomy procedures. These studies were then categorized according to the patient selection process for those who underwent sublobar resections. Patients were considered 'intentionally selected' if they could have tolerated either procedure, 'compromised' if they underwent a sublobar resection due to ineligibility for a lobectomy, or 'non-specified'. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies, including a single randomized controlled trial, involving 38,959 patients were found to meet the predefined selection criteria. For sublobar resections, comparative data demonstrated no significant difference in overall survival in the 'intentionally selected' group, but a significantly worse outcome for sublobar resections in the 'compromised group'. Similarly, for the comparison of segmentectomies versus lobectomies, available data demonstrated no significant difference in overall survival in the 'intentionally selected' group, but a significantly worse outcome for segmentectomy in the 'compromised group'. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis was the first to emphasize the patient selection process to compare 'intentionally selected' and 'compromised' patients who underwent sublobar resections versus lobectomies. Our results suggested that segmentectomies may be a feasible alternative for selected patients who could tolerate either procedure. These patients generally had tumours that were <2cm, located peripherally with favourable histopathology, and with ground-glass opacity on imaging.

Meta-analysis of intentional sublobar resections versus lobectomy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the preferred treatment modality for eligible candidates with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the selection of sublobar resection versus lobectomy for early-stage NSCLC remains controversial. Previous meta-analyses comparing these two procedures presented data without considering the significant differences in the patient selection processes in individual studies. The present study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes of patients who underwent sublobar resections who were also eligible for lobectomy procedures with those who underwent lobectomy. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using five online databases from their dates of inception to December 2013. Studies were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria and meta-analyzed using hazard ratio (HR) calculations. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the selection criteria, including 1,078 patients who underwent sublobar resections and 1,667 patients who underwent lobectomies. From the available data, there was no significant differences in OS [HR 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-1.29] or DFS (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.12) between the two treatment arms. In addition, no significant OS difference was detected for patients who underwent segmentectomies compared to lobectomies (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.66-1.63, P=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Using the available data in the current literature, patients who underwent sublobar resection for small, peripheral NSCLC after intentional selection rather than ineligibility for greater resections achieved similar long-term survival outcomes as those who underwent lobectomies. However, patients included for the present meta-analysis were a highly selected cohort and these results should be interpreted with caution. The importance of the patient selection process in individual studies must be acknowledged to avoid conflicting outcomes in future meta-analyses.

A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve repair for patients with degenerative mitral disease.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a mini-thoracotomy approach was developed in the mid-1990s as an alternative to conventional sternotomy, but with reduced trauma and quicker recovery. However, technical demands and a paucity of comparative data have thus far limited the widespread adoption of minimally invasive mitral valve repair (MIMVR). Previous meta-analyses have grouped various surgical techniques and underlying valvular disease aetiologies together for comparison. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of MIMVR versus conventional mitral valve repair in patients with degenerative mitral valve disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the current literature was performed through nine electronic databases from January 1995 to July 2013 to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on MIMVR versus conventional mitral valve surgery. Measured endpoints included mortality, stroke, renal failure, wound infection, reoperation for bleeding, aortic dissection, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, readmission within 30 days, cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time and durations of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and overall hospitalization. Echocardiographic outcomes were also assessed when possible. RESULTS: Seven relevant studies were identified according to the predefined study selection criteria, including one randomized controlled trial and six retrospective studies. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes did not identify any statistically significant differences between MIMVR and conventional mitral valve repair. The duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter for patients who underwent MIMVR, but this did not translate to a shorter hospitalization period. Patients who underwent MIMVR required longer cross clamp time as well as cardiopulmonary bypass time. Both surgical techniques appeared to achieve satisfactory echocardiographic outcomes. Pain-related outcomes was assessed in one study and reported significantly less pain for patients who underwent MIMVR. However, this limited data was not suitable for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature has limited data on comparative outcomes after MIMVR versus conventional mitral valve repair for patients with degenerative disease. From the available evidence, there are no significant differences between the two surgical techniques in regards to clinical outcomes. Patients who underwent MIMVR required longer cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times, but the duration of stay in the ICU was significantly shorter than conventional mitral valve repair.