Outcomes of Functional Testing Versus Invasive Cardiac Catheterization for the Evaluation of Intermediate Severity Coronary Stenosis Detected on Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of functional testing in comparison to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) among acute chest pain patients whose first diagnostic modality was a coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA) and were found to have intermediate coronary stenosis, defined as 50%-70% luminal stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 4763 acute chest pain patients ≥18 years old who received a CCTA as the initial diagnostic modality. Of these, 118 patients met enrollment criteria and proceeded to either stress test (80/118) or directly to ICA (38/118). The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiac event, consisting of acute myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death. RESULTS: There was no difference in 30-day major adverse cardiac event among patients who underwent initial stress testing versus directly referred to ICA (0% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.322) following CCTA. The rate of revascularization without acute myocardial infarction was significantly higher among those who underwent ICA versus stress test [36.8% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.0001; adjusted odds ratio: 9.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.8-49.6]. Patients who underwent ICA had a higher rate of catheterization without revascularization within 30 days of the index admission in comparison to those who underwent initial stress testing (55.3% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.0001; adjusted odds ratio: 26.7, 95% confidence interval, 6.6-109.5). CONCLUSION: Among patients with intermediate coronary stenosis on CCTA, a functional stress test compared with ICA may prevent unnecessary revascularization and improve cardiac catheterization yield without negatively affecting the 30-day patient safety profile.

Therapeutic Misconception about Research Procedures: Does a Simple Information Chart Improve Understanding?

In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study's aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.

Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cardiac Ascites: A Rare but Deadly Occurrence.

BACKGROUND Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is frequently described in cirrhotic patients who develop infected ascitic fluid. However, ascites can be cardiac in origin. The phenomenon of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cardiac ascites is an extremely rare but deadly occurrence. CASE REPORT Here we present a unique case of a patient who was admitted for advanced cardiorenal syndrome in the setting of a viral colitis that likely promoted a bacterial translocation resulting in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS This case tends to shed light on a few quintessential points for clinicians to be aware of, including the potential intersection between the microbiota and metabolic effects of congestive heart failure and the necessity to lower the diagnostic threshold for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cardiac ascites in patient's presenting for a congestive heart failure exacerbation.

Videos improve patient understanding of misunderstood chemotherapy terminology.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is the backbone of many cancer therapies; however, the terminology used to describe chemotherapy may be difficult for patients to understand, particularly in underserved populations. Studies have shown that educational videos can improve patient understanding of cancer-related terms. The goal of this study was to identify chemotherapy terms that were difficult for an underserved population to understand and then develop and test educational videos describing these terms. METHODS: A word bank of 50 difficult-to-understand chemotherapy terms was developed by querying 15 providers and 50 patients at an underserved hospital. Twenty of these terms were then tested with 50 additional patients to determine rates of misunderstanding. Six pilot educational videos describing 6 important terms were created using VideoScribe and then assessed with 50 patients to see if they improved understanding. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 20 terms tested to establish rates of misunderstanding were misunderstood by more than one third of patients, with 98% unable to define maintenance, 74% unable to define cancer, and 58% unable to define chemotherapy. Patient understanding of all 6 terms improved by at least 20% after watching the videos. Notable improvement was reported for palliative chemotherapy, where before-and-after video understanding increased from 0% to 72%. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy, a backbone of cancer treatment, is described with terms that are difficult to understand. Short, animated educational videos can significantly increase patient understanding of chemotherapy terminology.

Potential Benefits to Families, Children, and Adolescents Enrolled in Longitudinal Qualitative Research.

Previous research has focused on the risks of research participation but has rarely considered possible benefits. For a study of family decision-making during pediatric bone marrow transplant, we conducted qualitative interviews with 132 family members across 36 families up to three times over the course of a year, before and after transplant. We concluded the study with qualitative interviews of 70 family members from 21 of the original families one year after the transplants, focusing on benefits and concerns regarding their research participation. Participants, including children and adolescents, reported benefits including the opportunity to talk, be altruistic, reflect, have a safe space, gain understanding or perspective, and express emotions. Sixteen percent expressed concerns, mostly finding aspects of the methodology annoying. We encourage institutional review boards to understand that sensitive conversations with adults, children or adolescents may not always increase the risk of the study and may offer benefits to those who agree to be interviewed. We therefore suggest that language describing potential benefits could be included in consent and assent forms for qualitative studies.

Patient perspectives on compensation for biospecimen donation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether biospecimen donors believe they should receive compensation. This is the first study to report biospecimen donors' views on compensation and can potentially improve informed consent and recruitment practices. METHODS: Researchers asked patients undergoing surgical removal of tissue to donate biological materials to a biobank; the request was made at their presurgical appointment or in the preoperative clinic of the Emory University Hospital. We interviewed 126 biospecimen donors within 30 days post surgery regarding their perspective on compensation for biospecimen donation. RESULTS: In response to the question "Should you be paid for your participation in the tissue bank?," 95 (95/126, 75%) participants answered "No." Of these, 55 (55/95, 58%) indicated that donating biological materials should be about altruism, not gaining a monetary reward. Only 11 (11/126, 9%) participants unequivocally believed they should receive compensation, while 14 (14/126, 11%) felt entitled to compensation only under specific circumstances. Eleven (11/14) "Depends" participants indicated that donors should only be compensated when researchers perform for-profit research. Responses varied by race and income level, with whites more likely to not feel entitled to compensation and higher income participants more likely to respond "Depends." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of biospecimen donors stated they should not be paid for tissue bank participation. However, a minority believe they should be paid for donating tissue if the tissue is used in revenue-generating projects. These results provide some support for the current biobanking practice of not providing compensation.