Investigation of commonly used aortic aneurysm growth rate metrics: Comparing their suitability for clinical and research applications.

An aneurysm is a pathological widening of a blood vessel. Aneurysms of the aorta are often asymptomatic until they rupture, killing approximately 10,000 Americans per year. Fortunately, rupture can be prevented through early detection and surgical repair. However, surgical risk outweighs rupture risk for small aortic aneurysms, necessitating a policy of surveillance. Understanding the growth rate of aneurysms is essential for determining appropriate surveillance windows. Further, identifying risk factors for fast growth can help identify potential interventions. However, studies in the literature have applied many different methods for defining the growth rate of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It is unclear which of these methods is most accurate and clinically meaningful, and whether these heterogeneous methodologies may have contributed to the varied results reported in the literature. To help future researchers best plan their studies and to help clinicians interpret existing studies, we compared five different models of aneurysmal growth rate. We examined their noise tolerance, temporal bias, predictive accuracy, and statistical power to detect risk factors. We found that hierarchical mixed effects models were more noise tolerant than traditional, unpooled models. We also found that linear models were sensitive to temporal bias, assigning lower growth rates to aneurysms that were detected earlier in their course. Our exponential mixed model was noise-tolerant, resistant to temporal bias, and detected the greatest number of clinical risk factors. We conclude that exponential mixed models may be optimal for large studies. Because our results suggest that choice of method can materially impact a study's findings, we recommend that future studies clearly state the method used and demonstrate its appropriateness.

Grip strength measurement for frailty assessment in patients with vascular disease and associations with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is associated with adverse events, length of stay, and nonhome discharge after vascular surgery. Frailty measures based on walking-based tests may be impractical or invalid for patients with walking impairment from symptoms or sequelae of vascular disease. We hypothesized that grip strength is associated with frailty, comorbidity, and cardiac risk among patients with vascular disease. METHODS: Dominant hand grip strength was measured during ambulatory clinic visits among patients with vascular disease (abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA], carotid stenosis, and peripheral artery disease [PAD]). Frailty prevalence was defined on the basis of the 20th percentile of community-dwelling population estimates adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index. Associations between grip strength, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), and sarcopenia (based on total psoas area for patients with cross-sectional abdominal imaging) were evaluated using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Grip strength was measured in 311 participants; all had sufficient data for CCI calculation, 217 (69.8%) had sufficient data for RCRI, and 88 (28.3%) had cross-sectional imaging permitting psoas measurement. Eighty-six participants (27.7%) were categorized as frail on the basis of grip strength. Frailty was associated with CCI (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.57; P = .0002) in the multivariable model. Frail participants also had a higher average number of RCRI components vs nonfrail patients (mean ± standard deviation, 1.8 ± 0.8 for frail vs 1.5 ± 0.7 for nonfrail; P = .018); frailty was also associated with RCRI in the adjusted multivariable model (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.64; P = .008). Total psoas area was lower among patients categorized as frail vs nonfrail on the basis of grip strength (21.0 ± 6.6 vs 25.4 ± 7.4; P = .010). Each 10 cm2 increase in psoas area was associated with a 5.7 kg increase in grip strength in a multivariable model adjusting for age and gender (P < .0001). Adjusted least squares mean psoas diameter estimates were 25.5 ± 1.1 cm2 for participants with AAA, 26.7 ± 2.0 cm2 for participants with carotid stenosis, and 22.7 ± 0.8 cm2 for participants with PAD (P = .053 for PAD vs AAA; P = .057 for PAD vs carotid stenosis; and P = .564 for AAA vs carotid stenosis). CONCLUSIONS: Grip strength is useful for identifying frailty among patients with vascular disease. Frail status based on grip strength is associated with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia in this population. These findings suggest that grip strength may have utility as a simple and inexpensive risk screening tool that is easily implemented in ambulatory clinics, avoids the need for imaging, and overcomes possible limitations of walking-based measures. Lower mean psoas diameters among patients with PAD vs other diagnoses may warrant consideration of specific approaches to morphomic analysis.

In vitro skin expansion: Wound healing assessment.

For treatments requiring split-thickness skin grafts, it is preferable to mesh the grafts. This reduces the amount of excised skin and covers more wound area. The mesh technique, however, destroys surface continuity, which results in scarring. Strain-based bioreactors, on the other hand, have successfully expanded split-thickness skin grafts in vitro within a 7-day period, increasing graft coverage. After in vitro expansion, the expanded skin grafts were tested in a porcine full-thickness excisional wound model. Expanded graft take rate was 100%. Volumetric, histologic, and mechanical assessments indicated that expanded grafts were comparable to unexpanded grafts (positive control). While there was considerable variation in expansion (31% to -3.1%), this technique has the potential to enhance the coverage area of skin grafts while reducing or eliminating scarring.