Reporting and Analysis of Sex in Vascular Surgery Research.

OBJECTIVE: To examine sex in human vascular surgery research by quantifying the inclusion and analysis of sex-based data in high-impact vascular surgery journals. METHODS: A bibliographic review of original manuscripts published in the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Journal of Vascular Surgery, JVS: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders, Journal of Endovascular Therapy, and Annals of Vascular Surgery from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 and January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 was conducted. Abstracted data included sex-based data analysis, inclusion of sex as a variable in multivariable analysis, inclusion of sex as an independent variable, and a discussion of sex-based results. RESULTS: Of the 3,762 articles that included human, animal, or cell subjects, 249 (6.6%) did not state sex. Of those 249 articles, 183 included human subjects, 55 included animal subjects and 11 utilized cell lines as the subjects. These were removed from analysis as well as the remaining 68 articles with animal subjects. Additionally, 23 researched a sex-specific pathology and were removed from analysis. Of the remaining 3,422 articles included in our study, 42.3% analyzed sex, 46.9% included sex in multivariable analysis, 4.8% included sex as an independent variable, and 26.6% of articles included a discussion of sex. There were no significant differences in all four sex variables between 2018, 2019, and 2020. Between 2018-2020 and 2023, there were significant increases in all four sex variables. Multicenter studies had significantly higher rates of independent analysis of sex over single center studies (7.4% vs 3.3%, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in independent analysis of sex between US-based and non-US-based studies. Only 191 articles (5.6%) had 90% or greater matching of men and women in their study. CONCLUSIONS: Equitable inclusion and analysis of sex is rare in vascular surgery research. Less than 5% of articles included an independent analysis of data by sex and few studies included males and females equally. Clinical research is the basis for evidence-based medicine; therefore, it is important to strive for equitable inclusion, analysis, and reporting of data to foster generalizability of clinical research to men and women.

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Doses in Allogeneic Hemopoietic Stem Cell Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are blunted in these profoundly immunocompromised patients. As a result, novel strategies for protection, such as additional vaccine doses (boosters), are being explored. However, data regarding the efficacy of a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in alloHCT recipients are limited and conflicting. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the efficacy of a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in alloHCT recipients. The review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, and 7 studies with 385 alloHCT recipients who received 3 vaccine doses were included. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of seroconversion following the third dose of vaccine and the rate of seroconversion in patients who did not respond to the initial 2-dose vaccination series. RESULTS: The pooled humoral response rate after 3 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in alloHCT recipients was 74%. In a subgroup analysis of patients who did not respond to the initial 2-dose series, the seroconversion rate following the third vaccine dose was 49%. Notably, male patients and those with a shorter interval between alloHCT and the first vaccine dose were more likely to not respond to the third dose. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the pooled humoral response rate of 74% following three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in alloHCT recipients highlights the potential for protection in this immunosuppressed population. Additionally, encouraging responses in nearly half of the patients who did not seroconvert with the initial 2-dose series suggest the continued utilization of additional vaccine doses until results from large prospective studies become available. These findings are critical for informing vaccination strategies in alloHCT recipients to mitigate the high mortality risk associated with COVID-19.

Efficacy of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Doses in Patients with B Cell Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy: A Contemporary Cohort Analysis.

The mortality due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) approaches 40% in recipients of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy (CAR-T). The efficacy of repeated vaccine doses, including bivalent boosters, remains unknown. We examined the efficacy of repeated vaccine doses among CAR-T recipients who received at least 2 or more vaccine doses after T cell infusion. This single-center retrospective study included adults age >18 years receiving CAR-T for relapsed/refractory (R/R) B cell hematologic malignancies targeting CD19, BCMA, or CD19 and CD20 between September 2018 through March 2022 and were alive beyond 2021 to receive incremental SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses with available seroconversion data. Multivariable analyses were performed using the design-adjusted Cox regression and logistic regression approaches with stratification. In multivariable analysis, seroconversion rates were significantly greater with a total of 4 or more vaccine doses (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; P = .008). CAR-T recipients with other B cell hematologic malignancies had significantly lower seroconversion rates and diminished Ab titers compared to those with R/R multiple myeloma (OR, .07; P = .003). One patient died due to COVID-19 in this vaccinated study cohort, accounting for a COVID-19-attributable mortality rate of 1.7%. The results provide baseline vaccine response data in a contemporary cohort including patients with diverse group of SARS-COV2 variants and support the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for repeated vaccinations directed against the prevalent variant of concern.

Early incident and subsyndromal delirium in older patients undergoing elective surgical procedures: a randomized clinical trial of an avoid delirium protocol.

Background: Pharmacological avoidance guidelines for preventing delirium have been suggested; however, there are limited pragmatic studies of these strategies. Early (<24 h) delirium can be observed in the postoperative care unit and is associated with an increased risk of subsequent delirium. We examined the effectiveness of an avoid delirium protocol (ADP) in older (>65 years) patients undergoing elective surgeries. Methods: The randomized controlled trial assessed an ADP developed using the American Geriatric Society's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults, on early (<24 h) incident or subsyndromal delirium. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method before surgery, in the post-anesthesia care unit, and on postoperative day 1. The primary outcome of early delirium was the combined incidence of incident or subsyndromal delirium. Results: Early delirium was identified in 24/235 patients (10.2%) with a risk ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 0.59-2.73, P = 0.667) for patients randomized to the ADP. In cases with protocol adherence and no benzodiazepine use, early delirium was present in 10/ 73 (13.7%) compared to 14/148 (9.5%) in non-adherent cases [risk ratio 1.45 (95% CI 0.57-3.10, P = 0.362)]. Lower American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class [odds ratio 3.31 (95% CI 1.35-8.92, P = 0.008)] and an inpatient admission [odds ratio 2.67 (95% CI 1.55-4.87, P = 0.0002)] were associated with early delirium. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that pharmacological avoidance protocols limiting or avoiding the use of specific classes of medications are not effective in reducing early incident or subsyndromal delirium in older patients undergoing elective surgery.