Antithrombotic therapy for durable left ventricular assist devices: protocol for a living systematic review with indirect comparison/network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as a successful treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure. Compared with the best medical therapy, LVADs improve survival and enhance functional capacity and quality of life. However, two major complications compromise this patient population's outcomes: thrombosis and bleeding. Despite technological innovations and better hemocompatibility, these devices alter the rheology, triggering the coagulation cascade and, therefore, require antithrombotic therapy. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies represent the current standard of care. Still, inconsistency in the literature exists, especially whether antiplatelet therapy is required, whether direct oral anticoagulants can replace vitamin K antagonists and even whether phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with their antithrombotic effects could be added to the regimen of anticoagulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a living systematic review with network meta-analysis and indirect comparison between current antithrombotic therapies, which have and have not been directly compared within clinical trials and observational studies. We will systematically search the following electronic sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE). We will exclusively examine studies published in English from 2016 to the present. Studies conducted before 2016 will be omitted since our primary focus is evaluating continuous flow devices. Two independent reviewers will assess the articles by title, abstract and full text; any disagreement will be resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer will be involved if necessary. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. We will then conduct a pairwise meta-analysis; if the assumption of transitivity is satisfied, we will proceed with network meta-analysis using Bayesian methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will delineate the risks of stroke, thromboembolic events, pump thrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality in patients equipped with LVADs who are subjected to various antithrombotic regimens. The findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conference meetings. This will enhance clinical practice and guide future research on anticoagulation strategies within this distinct patient cohort. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023465288.

Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives: The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes. Search Methods: Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta-analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty-related outcomes were classified into categories and sub-categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results: Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross-sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty-related outcomes, including one pre-defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.49, and SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta-analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well-being, self-rated overall physical health, self-rated life satisfaction, and self-rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions: The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty-related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.

A scoping review shows that no single existing risk of bias assessment tool considers all sources of bias for cross-sectional studies.

OBJECTIVE: Different tools to assess the potential risk of bias (RoB) for cross-sectional studies have been developed, but it is unclear whether all pertinent bias concepts are addressed. We aimed to identify RoB concepts applicable to cross-sectional research validity and to explore coverage for each in existing appraisal tools. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included records of any study design describing or reporting methods, concepts or tools used to consider RoB in health research reported to be descriptive/ prevalence survey or analytic/association (cross-sectional) study designs. Synthesis included quantitative and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Of the 4,556 records screened, 90 were selected for inclusion; 67 (74%) described the development of, or validation process for, appraisal tools, 15 (17%) described methodological content or theory relevant to RoB for cross-sectional studies and 8 (9%) records of methodological systematic reviews. Review of methodological reports identified important RoB concepts for both descriptive/prevalence and analytic/association studies. Tools identified (n=64 unique tools) were either intended to appraise quality or assess RoB in multiple study designs including cross-sectional studies (n=21; 33%) or cross-sectional designs alone (n=43; 67%). Several existing tools were modified (n=17; 27%) for application to cross-sectional studies. The RoB items most frequently addressed in the RoB tools were validity and reliability of the exposure (53%) or outcome (65%) measurement and representativeness of the study population (59%). Most tools did not consider non-response or missingness appropriately or at all. CONCLUSION: Assessing cross-sectional studies involves unique risk of bias (RoB) considerations. We identified RoB tools designed for broad applicability across various study designs as well as those specifically tailored for cross-sectional studies. However, none of the identified tools comprehensively address all potential biases pertinent to cross-sectional studies. Our findings indicate a need for continued improvement of RoB tools and suggest that the development of context-specific or more precise tools for this study design may be necessary.

Prognostic Implications of Residual Tricuspid Regurgitation Grading After Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair.

BACKGROUND: The safety profile of transcatheter tricuspid valve (TTV) repair techniques is well established, but residual tricuspid regurgitation (TR) remains a concern. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the impact of residual TR severity post-TTV repair on survival. METHODS: We evaluated the survival rate at 2 years of 613 patients with severe isolated functional TR who underwent TTV repair in TRIGISTRY according to the severity of residual TR at discharge using a 3-grade (mild, moderate, and severe) or 4-grade scheme (mild, mild to moderate, moderate to severe, and severe). RESULTS: Residual TR was none/mild in 33%, moderate in 52%, and severe in 15%. The 2-year adjusted survival rates significantly differed between the 3 groups (85%, 70%, and 44%, respectively; restricted mean survival time [RMST]: P = 0.0001). When the 319 patients with moderate residual TR were subdivided into mild to moderate (n = 201, 33%) and moderate to severe (n = 118, 19%), the adjusted survival rate was also significantly different between groups (85%, 80%, 55%, and 44%, respectively; RMST: P = 0.001). Survival was significantly lower in patients with moderate to severe residual TR compared to patients with mild to moderate residual TR (P = 0.006). No difference in survival rates was observed between patients with no/mild and mild to moderate residual TR (P = 0.67) or between patients with moderate to severe and severe residual TR (P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The moderate residual TR group was heterogeneous and encompassed patients with markedly different clinical outcomes. Refining TR grade classification with a more granular 4-grade scheme improved outcome prediction. Our results highlight the importance of achieving a mild to moderate or lower residual TR grade during TTV repair, which could define a successful intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of population screening for aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease predominantly affecting elderly patients that carries significant morbidity and mortality without aortic valve replacement, the only proven treatment. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of AS screening using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in a geriatric population from the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system in Canada. METHODS: Markov models estimating the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AS screening with a one-time TTE were developed. The model included diagnosed and undiagnosed AS health states, hospitalizations, TAVR and post-TAVR health states. Primary analysis included screening at 70 and 80 years of age with intervention at symptom onset, with scenario analysis included for early intervention at the time of severe asymptomatic AS diagnosis. Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 replications was completed with a lifetime horizon and 1.5% discount for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: Screening for AS at the age of 70 years was associated with an ICER of $156,722 and screening at 80 years of age was associated with an ICER of $28,005, suggesting that screening at 80 years of age is cost-effective when willingness-to-pay per QALY is $50,000. Scenario analysis with early intervention was not cost-effective with an ICER of $142,157 at 70 years, and $124,651 at 80 years. CONCLUSION: Screening for AS at 80 years of age with a one-time TTE, in a Canadian population, improves quality of life and is cost-effective in a publicly funded healthcare system providing TAVR is reserved for symptomatic patients.

Additive toxicity arising from combined use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with renal or endometrial carcinoma: Protocol for a rapid systematic review.

The combined use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ICI/TKI) is an effective treatment strategy for some cancers. A better understanding of the potential additive toxicity for ICI/TKI combinations is needed to inform patient and provider treatment decisions. We aim to evaluate the safety of ICI/TKI combinations for individuals with renal cell or endometrial carcinoma. This rapid systematic review (SR) protocol follows PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search will be designed, peer reviewed and executed by experienced information specialists (Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Embase) to identify published SRs and primary studies published since the most recent SR search. Randomized, quasi- or non-randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies are eligible if they compare ICI/TKI combinations to monotherapy or standard of care in participants with renal cell or endometrial carcinoma. The primary outcome is grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse-effects. Studies will be screened, selected, extracted and assessed for risk of bias by a single reviewer and checked completely by a second. Where feasible and appropriate, we will pool studies separately by design and indication using meta-analysis and test robustness of effects using prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables and figures. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023416388).•This will be a comprehensive systematic review of the additive toxicity arising from the combined use of ICI/TKIs in patients with renal-cell or endometrial carcinoma.•We will consider treatment-related, treatment-emergent adverse events (Grade 3 or higher).•Identified safety profile may be used to inform patient or provider treatment decisions.

Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

A randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy for suppression of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: The VANISH2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with prior myocardial infarction is associated with adverse quality of life and clinical outcomes, despite the presence of implanted defibrillators (ICDs). Suppression of recurrent VT can be accomplished with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or catheter ablation. The Ventricular Tachycardia Antiarrhythmics or Ablation In Structural Heart Disease 2 (VANISH2) trial is designed to determine whether ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line therapy for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. METHODS: The VANISH2 trial enrolls patients with prior myocardial infarction and VT (with one of: ≥1 ICD shock; ≥3 episodes treated with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and symptoms; ≥5 episodes treated with ATP regardless of symptoms; ≥3 episodes within 24 hours; or sustained VT treated with electrical cardioversion or pharmacologic conversion). Enrolled patients are classified as either sotalol-eligible, or amiodarone-eligible, and then are randomized to either catheter ablation or to that antiarrhythmic drug therapy, with randomization stratified by drug-eligibility group. Drug therapy, catheter ablation procedures and ICD programming are standardized. All patients will be followed until two years after randomization. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality at any time, appropriate ICD shock after 14 days, VT storm after 14 days, and treated sustained VT below detection of the ICD after 14 days. The outcomes will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle using survival analysis techniques RESULTS: The results of the VANISH2 trial are intended to provide data to support clinical decisions on how to suppress VT for patients with prior myocardial infarction. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT02830360.

Comparing methanol and glycerol as carbon sources for mainstream partial denitrification/anammox in an IFAS process.

This study explored the implementation of mainstream partial denitrification with anammox (PdNA) in the second anoxic zone of a wastewater treatment process in an integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) configuration. A pilot study was conducted to compare the use of methanol and glycerol as external carbon sources for an IFAS PdNA startup, with a goal to optimize nitrogen removal while minimizing carbon usage. The study also investigated the establishment of anammox bacteria on virgin carriers in IFAS reactors without the use of seeding, and it is the first IFAS PdNA startup to use methanol as an external carbon source. The establishment of anammox bacteria was confirmed in both reactors 102 days after startup. Although the glycerol-fed reactor achieved a higher steady-state maximum ammonia removal rate because of anammox bacteria (1.6 ± 0.3 g/m2/day) in comparison with the methanol-fed reactor (1.2 ± 0.2 g/m2/day), both the glycerol- and methanol-fed reactors achieved similar average in situ ammonia removal rates of 0.39 ± 0.2 g/m2/day and 0.40 ± 0.2 g/m2/day, respectively. Additionally, when the upstream ammonia versus NOx (AvN) control system maintained an ideal ratio of 0.40-0.50 g/g, the methanol-fed reactor attained a lower average effluent TIN concentration (3.50 ± 1.2 mg/L) than the glycerol-fed reactor (4.43 ± 1.6 mg/L), which was prone to elevated nitrite concentrations in the effluent. Overall, this research highlights the potential for PdNA in IFAS configurations as an efficient and cost-saving method for wastewater treatment, with methanol as a viable carbon source for the establishment of anammox bacteria. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Methanol is an effective external carbon source for an anammox startup that avoids the need for costly alternative carbon sources. The methanol-fed reactor demonstrated higher TIN removal compared with the glycerol-fed reactor because of less overproduction of nitrite. Anammox bacteria was established in an IFAS reactor without seeding and used internally stored carbon to reduce external carbon addition. Controlling the influent ammonia versus NOx (AvN) ratio between 0.40 and 0.50 g/g allowed for low and stable TIN effluent conditions.

Quantifying Elastic Properties of Environmental Biofilms using Optical Coherence Elastography.

Biofilms are complex biomaterials comprising a well-organized network of microbial cells encased in self-produced extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). This paper presents a detailed account of the implementation of optical coherence elastography (OCE) measurements tailored for the elastic characterization of biofilms. OCE is a non-destructive optical technique that enables the local mapping of the microstructure, morphology, and viscoelastic properties of partially transparent soft materials with high spatial and temporal resolution. We provide a comprehensive guide detailing the essential procedures for the correct implementation of this technique, along with a methodology to estimate the bulk Young's modulus of granular biofilms from the collected measurements. These consist of the system setup, data acquisition, and postprocessing. In the discussion, we delve into the underlying physics of the sensors used in OCE and explore the fundamental limitations regarding the spatial and temporal scales of OCE measurements. We conclude with potential future directions for advancing the OCE technique to facilitate elastic measurements of environmental biofilms.

One-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled ODIN trial.

The optimal antiplatelet strategy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear. Adding the P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, to low-dose aspirin for 1 year is associated with a reduction in graft failure, particularly saphenous vein grafts, at the expense of an increased risk of clinically important bleeding. As the risk of thrombotic graft failure and ischaemic events is highest early after CABG surgery, a better risk-to-benefit profile may be attained with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients (ODIN) trial is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study of 700 subjects that will evaluate the effect of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus low-dose aspirin after CABG in patients with CCS. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or matching placebo, in addition to aspirin 75-150 mg once daily for 1 month; after the first month, antiplatelet therapy will be continued with aspirin alone. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year. The key secondary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 bleeding, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year (net clinical benefit). ODIN will report whether the addition of ticagrelor to low-dose aspirin for 1 month after CABG reduces ischaemic events and provides a net clinical benefit in patients with CCS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05997693).

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Risk of bias in cross-sectional studies: Protocol for a scoping review of concepts and tools.

Cross-sectional studies are commonly used to study human health and disease, but are especially susceptible to bias. This scoping review aims to identify and describe available tools to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in cross-sectional studies and to compile the key bias concepts relevant to cross-sectional studies into an item bank. Using the JBI scoping review methodology, the strategy to locate relevant RoB concepts and tools is a combination of database searches, prospective review of PROSPERO registry records; and consultation with knowledge users and content experts. English language records will be included if they describe tools, checklists, or instruments which describe or permit assessment of RoB for cross-sectional studies. Systematic reviews will be included if they consider eligible RoB tools or use RoB tools for RoB of cross-sectional studies. All records will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. An analytic framework will be used to structure the extraction of data. Results for the scoping review are pending. Results from this scoping review will be used to inform future selection of RoB tools and to consider whether development of a new RoB tool for cross-sectional studies is needed.

Multi-phase implementation of automated external defibrillator use by nurses during in-hospital cardiac arrest and its impact on survival.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the impact of a medical directive allowing nurses to use defibrillators in automated external defibrillator-mode (AED) on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) outcomes. METHODS: We completed a health record review of consecutive IHCA for which resuscitation was attempted using a pragmatic multi-phase before-after cohort design. We report Utstein outcomes before (Jan.2012-Aug.2013;Control) the implementation of the AED medical directive following usual practice (Sept.2013-Aug.2016;Phase 1), and following the addition of a theory-based educational video (Sept.2016-Dec.2017;Phase 2). RESULTS: There were 753 IHCA with the following characteristics (Before n = 195; Phase 1n = 372; Phase 2n = 186): mean age 66, 60.0% male, 79.3% witnessed, 29.1% noncardiac-monitored medical ward, 23.9% cardiac cause, and initial ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (VF/VT) 27.2%. Comparing the Before, Phase 1 and 2: an AED was used 0 time (0.0%), 21 times (5.7%), 15 times (8.1%); mean times to 1st analysis were 7 min, 3 min and 1 min (p < 0.0001); mean times to 1st shock were 12 min, 10 min and 8 min (p = 0.32); return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was 63.6%, 59.4% and 58.1% (p = 0.77); survival was 24.6%, 21.0% and 25.8% (p = 0.37). Among IHCA in VF/VT (n = 165), time to 1st analysis and 1st shock decreased by 5 min (p = 0.01) and 6 min (p = 0.23), and ROSC and survival increased by 3.0% (p = 0.80) and 15.6% (p = 0.31). There was no survival benefit overall (1.2%; p = 0.37) or within noncardiac-monitored areas (-7.2%; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a medical directive allowing for AED use by nurses successfully improved key outcomes for IHCA victims, particularly following the theory-based education video and among the VF/VT group.

Long-Term Outcomes of Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed a greater benefit with respect to mortality at 5 years among patients who received cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) than among those who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the effect of CRT on long-term survival is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more (or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more) to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). We assessed long-term outcomes among patients at the eight highest-enrolling participating sites. The primary outcome was death from any cause; the secondary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1798 patients, of whom 1050 were included in the long-term survival trial; the median duration of follow-up for the 1050 patients was 7.7 years (interquartile range, 3.9 to 12.8), and the median duration of follow-up for those who survived was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 12.8 to 15.7). Death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. The time until death appeared to be longer for those assigned to receive a CRT-D than for those assigned to receive an ICD (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P = 0.002). A secondary-outcome event occurred in 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group and in 392 (75.4%) in the CRT-D group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and NYHA class II or III heart failure, the survival benefit associated with receipt of a CRT-D as compared with ICD appeared to be sustained during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up. (RAFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).

High-power short-duration versus low-power long-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: A substudy of the AWARE randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein isolations (PVI) are being performed using a high-power, short-duration (HPSD) strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of an HPSD versus low-power, long-duration (LPLD) approach to PVI in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Patients were grouped according to a HPSD (≥40 W) or LPLD (≤35 W) strategy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia lasting ≥30 s, detected using three 14-day ambulatory continuous ECG monitoring. Procedural and safety endpoints were also evaluated. The primary analysis were regression models incorporating propensity scores yielding adjusted relative risk (RRa ) and mean difference (MDa ) estimates. RESULTS: Of the 398 patients included in the AWARE Trial, 173 (43%) underwent HPSD and 225 (57%) LPLD ablation. The distribution of power was 50 W in 75%, 45 W in 20%, and 40 W in 5% in the HPSD group, and 35 W with 25 W on the posterior wall in the LPLD group. The primary outcome was not statistically significant at 30.1% versus 22.2% in HPSD and LPLD groups with RRa 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.55-1.10; p = .165). The secondary outcome of repeat catheter ablation was not statistically significant at 6.9% and 9.8% (RRa 1.59 [95% CI 0.77-3.30]; p = .208) respectively, nor was the incidence of any ECG documented AF during the blanking period: 1.7% versus 8.0% (RRa 3.95 [95% CI 1.00-15.61; p = .049) in the HPSD versus LPLD group respectively. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in the HPSD group (MDa 97.5 min [95% CI 84.8-110.4)]; p < .0001) with no difference in adjudicated serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An HPSD strategy was associated with significantly shorter procedural times with similar efficacy in terms of clinical arrhythmia recurrence. Importantly, there was no signal for increased harm with a HPSD strategy.

Objects drawn from haptic perception and vision-based spatial abilities.

Haptic perception is used in the anatomy laboratory with the handling of three-dimensional (3D) prosections, dissections, and synthetic models of anatomical structures. Vision-based spatial ability has been found to correlate with performance on tests of 3D anatomy knowledge in previous studies. The objective was to explore whether haptic-based spatial ability was correlated with vision-based spatial ability. Vision-based spatial ability was measured in a study group of 49 medical graduates with three separate tests: a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Tests in two (MRT A) and three (MRT C) dimensions and a Surface Development Test (SDT). Haptic-based spatial ability was measured using 18 different objects constructed from 10 cubes glued together. Participants were asked to draw these objects from blind haptic perception, and drawings were scored by two independent judges. The maximum score was 24 for each of MRT A and MRT C, 60 for SDT, and 18 for the drawings. The drawing score based on haptic perception [median = 17 (lower quartile = 16, upper quartile = 18)] correlated with MRT A [14 (9, 17)], MRT C [9 (7, 12)] and SDT [44 (36, 52)] scores with a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of 0.395 (p = 0.0049), 0.507 (p = 0.0002) and 0.606 (p < 0.0001), respectively. Spatial abilities assessed by vision-based tests were correlated with a drawing score based on haptic perception of objects. Future research should investigate the contribution of haptic-based and vision-based spatial abilities on learning 3D anatomy from physical models.

Do barrier dressings reduce cardiac implantable device infection: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (BARRIER-PROTECT).

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures can be associated with serious complications, including infection with significant mortality and morbidity, necessitating removal of the device and prolonged hospitalization. One potential pathophysiological mechanism is pocket contamination at the time of device implantation. Therefore, steps taken to prevent contamination at this stage can potentially reduce CIED infections.The barrier dressing, an adhesive material applied to the skin, has the potential to reduce the colonization of the surgical site with host flora that can predispose to infection. There are a limited number of randomized prospective studies on barrier dressing use during various surgeries, but it has never been systematically studied in CIED implantation. Objectives: Do Barrier Dressings Reduce Cardiac Implantable Device Infection? (BARRIER-PROTECT trial; NCT04591366) is a single-centre, prospective, double-armed, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the use of an intra-operative adhesive barrier dressing to reduce the risk of end-of-procedure pocket swab positivity. We hypothesize that adhesive draping during implant procedures will reduce the risk of contamination from the skin flora. Also, we aim to investigate if the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity can be used as a potential surrogate marker of CIED infection. Methods and Design: Patients undergoing a second or later procedure on the same device pocket (pulse generator change, lead/pocket revision or upgrade) will be enrolled. Eligible and consenting patients will be equally randomized to the use of barrier dressing or not using an automated web-based system. Patients, but not the operator, will be blinded to the arm. The person performing the pocket swabs will also be blinded. The primary endpoint is the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. The main secondary endpoint is the CIED infection rate. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using a barrier adhesive draping on reducing the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. In this study, we are exploring a low-cost intervention that may significantly reduce CIED infection. Also, having a valid surrogate marker for CIED infection at the time of implant will facilitate design of future clinical trials.

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Across the Health Care Pathway: A National, Multicenter, Patient-Informed Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for the management and convalescence of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) have yet to be developed. The targeted content, delivery, and outcomes of interventions that benefit this population remain unclear. Patient-informed data are required to substantiate observational research and provide evidence to inform and standardize clinical activities. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients diagnosed with SCAD (N=89; 86.5% women; mean age, 53.2 years) were purposively selected from 5 large tertiary care hospitals. Patients completed sociodemographic and medical questionnaires and participated in an interview using a patient-piloted semistructured interview guide. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to framework analysis using inductive and then deductive coding techniques. Approximately 1500 standard transcribed pages of interview data were collected. Emotional distress was the most commonly cited precipitating factor (56%), with an emphasis on anxiety symptoms. The awareness and detection of SCAD as a cardiac event was low among patients (35%) and perceived to be moderate among health care providers (55%). Health care providers' communication of the prognosis and self-management of SCAD were perceived to be poor (79%). Postevent psychological disorders among patients were evident (30%), and 73% feared recurrence. Short- and longer-term follow-up that was tailored to patients' needs was desired (72%). Secondary prevention programming was recommended, but there were low completion rates of conventional cardiac rehabilitation (48%), and current programming was deemed inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: This early-stage, pretrial research has important implications for the acute and long-term management of patients with SCAD. Additional work is required to validate the hypotheses generated from this patient-oriented research.