Acute Aortic Dissection Type A in Younger Patients (< 60 Years Old) - Does Full Arch Replacement Provide Benefits Compared to Limited Approach?

ABSTRACT Introduction: Acute aortic dissection Stanford type A (AADA) is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. Although surgical management has improved, the optimal therapy is a matter of debate. Different surgical strategies have been proposed for patients under 60 years old. This paper evaluates the postoperative outcome and the need for secondary aortic operation after a limited surgical approach (proximal arch replacement) vs. extended arch repair. Methods: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 530 patients received surgical treatment for AADA at our hospital; 182 were under 60 years old and were enrolled in this study - Group A (n=68), limited arch repair (proximal arch replacement), and group B (n=114), extended arch repair (> proximal arch replacement). Results: More pericardial tamponade (P=0.005) and preoperative mechanical resuscitation (P=0.014) were seen in Group A. More need for renal replacement therapy (P=0.047) was seen in the full arch group. Mechanical ventilation time (P=0.022) and intensive care unit stay (P<0.001) were shorter in the limited repair group. Thirty-day mortality was comparable (P=0.117). New onset of postoperative stroke was comparable (Group A four patients [5.9%] vs. Group B 15 patients [13.2%]; P=0.120). Long-term follow-up did not differ significantly for secondary aortic surgery. Conclusion: Even though young patients received only limited arch repair, the outcome was comparable. Full-arch replacement was not beneficial in the long-time follow-up. A limited approach is justified in the cohort of young AADA patients. Exemptions, like known Marfan syndrome and the presence of an intimal tear in the arch, should be considered.

Acute Aortic Dissection Type A in Younger Patients (< 60 Years Old) - Does Full Arch Replacement Provide Benefits Compared to Limited Approach?

INTRODUCTION: Acute aortic dissection Stanford type A (AADA) is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. Although surgical management has improved, the optimal therapy is a matter of debate. Different surgical strategies have been proposed for patients under 60 years old. This paper evaluates the postoperative outcome and the need for secondary aortic operation after a limited surgical approach (proximal arch replacement) vs. extended arch repair. METHODS: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 530 patients received surgical treatment for AADA at our hospital; 182 were under 60 years old and were enrolled in this study - Group A (n=68), limited arch repair (proximal arch replacement), and group B (n=114), extended arch repair (> proximal arch replacement). RESULTS: More pericardial tamponade (P=0.005) and preoperative mechanical resuscitation (P=0.014) were seen in Group A. More need for renal replacement therapy (P=0.047) was seen in the full arch group. Mechanical ventilation time (P=0.022) and intensive care unit stay (P<0.001) were shorter in the limited repair group. Thirty-day mortality was comparable (P=0.117). New onset of postoperative stroke was comparable (Group A four patients [5.9%] vs. Group B 15 patients [13.2%]; P=0.120). Long-term follow-up did not differ significantly for secondary aortic surgery. CONCLUSION: Even though young patients received only limited arch repair, the outcome was comparable. Full-arch replacement was not beneficial in the long-time follow-up. A limited approach is justified in the cohort of young AADA patients. Exemptions, like known Marfan syndrome and the presence of an intimal tear in the arch, should be considered.

Reimagining the Role of Health Departments and Their Partners in Addressing Climate Change: Revising the Building Resilience against Climate Effects (BRACE) Framework.

Public health departments have important roles to play in addressing the local health impacts of climate change, yet are often not well prepared to do so. The Climate and Health Program (CHP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created the Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework in 2012 as a five-step planning framework to support public health departments and their partners to respond to the health impacts of climate change. CHP has initiated a process to revise the framework to address learnings from a decade of experience with BRACE and advances in the science and practice of addressing climate and health. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the methodology for revising the BRACE framework and the expected outputs of this process. Development of the revised framework and associated guidance and tools will be guided by a multi-sector expert panel, and finalization will be informed by usability testing. Planned revisions to BRACE will (1) be consistent with the vision of Public Health 3.0 and position health departments as "chief health strategists" in their communities, who are responsible for facilitating the establishment and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations with community organizations, other partners, and other government agencies to address local climate impacts and prevent further harm to historically underserved communities; (2) place health equity as a central, guiding tenet; (3) incorporate greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, in addition to its previous focus on climate adaptation; and (4) feature a new set of tools to support BRACE implementation among a diverse set of users. The revised BRACE framework and the associated tools will support public health departments and their partners as they strive to prevent and reduce the negative health impacts of climate change for everyone, while focusing on improving health equity.

Onset of pain to surgery time in acute aortic dissections type A: a mandatory factor for evaluating surgical results?

Objective: An acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is a rare but life-threatening event. The mortality rate ranges between 18% to 28% and mortality is often within the first 24 h and up to 1%-2% per hour. Although the onset of pain to surgery time has not been a relevant factor in terms of research in the field of AADA, we hypothesize that a patient's preoperative conditions depend on the length of this time. Methods: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 430 patients received surgical treatment for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I at our tertiary referral hospital. In 11 patients, the exact time point of initial onset of pain was retrospectively not detectable. Accordingly, a total of 419 patients were included in the study. The cohort was categorized into two groups: Group A with an onset of pain to surgery time < 6 h (n = 211) and Group B > 6 h (n = 208), respectively. Results: Median age was 63.5 years (y) ((IQR: 53.3-71.4 y); (67.5% male)). Preoperative conditions differed significantly between the cohorts. Differences were detected in terms of malperfusion (A: 39.3%; B: 23.6%; P: 0.001), neurological symptoms (A: 24.2%; B: 15.4%; P: 0.024), and the dissection of supra-aortic arteries (A: 25.1%; B: 16.8%; P: 0.037). In particular, cerebral malperfusion (A 15.2%: B: 8.2%; P: 0.026) and limb malperfusion (A: 18%, B: 10.1%; P: 0.020) were significantly increased in Group A. Furthermore, Group A showed a decreased median survival time (A: 1,359.0 d; B: 2,247.5 d; P: 0.001), extended ventilation time (A: 53.0 h; B: 44.0 h; P: 0.249) and higher 30-day mortality rate (A: 25.1%; B: 17.3%; P: 0.051). Conclusions: Patients with a short onset of pain to surgery time in cases of AADA present themselves not only with more severe preoperative symptoms but are also the more compromised cohort. Despite early presentation and emergency aortic repair, these patients show increased chances of early mortality. The "onset of pain to surgery time" should become a mandatory factor when making comparable surgical evaluations in the field of AADA.

Preoperative pericardial hematoma in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD): Do we need an adjusted treatment?

OBJECTIVE: An acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is a critical emergency and remains one of the most challenging diseases in cardiothoracic surgery. The existence of a pericardial hematoma caused by an aortic rupture can dramatically reduce the chances of survival (Jerzewski and Kulik in J Card Surg 29(4):529-530, 2014; Mehta et al. in Circulation 105(2):200-206, 2002; Gilon et al. in Am J Cardiol 103(7):1029-1031, 2009; Isselbacher et al. in Circulation 90(5):2375-2378, 1994). We assessed the surgical outcome of a high-risk group of patients with AAAD and a pericardial hematoma. METHODS: In this study we included 430 Patients (67% male; median age: 64 years) who received surgical treatment between January 2000 and January 2018 at our facility for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I. We divided the cohort in two groups: Group A consisted of high-risk patients with a pericardial hematoma (n = 162) and Group B of patients without pericardial hematoma (n = 268). RESULTS: Patients with a preoperative pericardial hematoma had a significantly higher requirement for preoperative mechanical resuscitation (A: 21%; B: 1.5%; P: < 0.001) and were relevantly more frequently admitted to the operation theater with an intubated status (A: 19.8%; B: 8.6%; P: < 0.001). The incidence of visceral malperfusion differed significantly between both groups (A. 11.7%, B. 6:0%; P: 0.034). Limited aortic arch repair (proximal aortic arch replacement) was preferred in the high-risk group (A: 51.9%; B: 40.3%; P: 0.020). However, survival time was generally reduced in these patients (A: 7.5 y; B: 9.9 y). CONCLUSION: AAAD patients with preoperative pericardial hematoma present themselves in potentially lethal conditions, with a significantly higher rate of visceral malperfusion. Despite the existence of this risk factor, a limited arch repair was favored. We have proven that cardiac compression is associated with preoperative intubation and mechanical resuscitation. Patients with pericardial hematoma must be further evaluated for preoperative pericardial drainage. In the event of long transfer times to an aortic center a slow drainage should be discussed to prevent early mortality.

Traumatic Events, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Central Sensitization in Chronic Pain Patients of a German University Outpatient Pain Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic life events are often coupled to chronic pain, possibly linked by central sensitization. We wanted to assess the prevalence of traumatic events and PTSD in chronic pain patients of a German university hospital outpatient pain clinic. Moreover, we evaluated the extent of indicators and co-occurring traits of central sensitization in comorbid patients. METHODS: We retrospectively divided 914 chronic pain patients into four groups depending on their trauma severity: no trauma, accidental trauma, interpersonal trauma, and PTSD. We collected electronic pain drawings focusing on pain area and widespreadness, as well as information about pain intensity, sleep impairment, disability, stress, anxiety, depression, and somatization. Differences between groups were calculated using Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Of 914 patients, 231 (25%) had no trauma, 210 (23%) had accidental traumas, 283 (31%) had interpersonal traumas, 99 (11%) had PTSD, and 91 (10%) could not be classified. We observed statistically significant differences between groups in pain area and widespreadness, as well as maximal pain, sleep impairment, disability, stress, anxiety, depression, and somatization. The severity of symptoms increased with trauma severity. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic life events and PTSD are frequent in chronic pain patients. The increased pain area and widespreadness, as well as the increased negative impact on co-occurring traits of sensory sensitivity (anxiety, depression, somatization), are compatible with central sensitization in comorbid patients. Therefore, a heightened awareness of the comorbidity between traumatic experiences and chronic pain is recommended.

Impact of preoperative malperfusion on postoperative outcomes in type A aortic dissection - importance of serum lactate estimation in ongoing malperfusion.

INTRODUCTION: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is one of the most critical emergencies in cardiovascular surgery. Additional complications such as organ malperfusion can significantly decrease the chances of survival. Despite promptly performed surgical treatment, impaired organ perfusion may persist, thus close postoperative monitoring is recommended. But, is there a surgical consequence due to the existence of a preoperatively known malperfusion and is there a correlation between pre-, peri- and postoperative levels of serum lactate and proven malperfusion? METHODS: Between 2011 and 2018, 200 patients (66% male; median age: 62.5 years; interquartile range: +/-12.4 years) that received surgical treatment at our institution for an acute dissection DeBakey type I were enrolled in this study. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the preoperative existence of malperfusion and non-malperfusion. At least one kind of malperfusion occurred in 74 patients (Group A: 37%), while 126 patients (Group B: 63%) showed no evidence of malperfusion. Furthermore, lactate levels of both cohorts were differentiated into four periods: preoperative, intraoperative, 24 hours after surgery, and 2-4 days after surgery. RESULTS: The patients' status differed significantly prior to surgery. Group A (malperfusion) showed an elevated requirement for mechanical resuscitation (A: 10.8%; B: 5.6%; p: 0.173), were significantly more often admitted in an intubated state (A: 14.9%; B: 2.4%; p: 0.001) and showed higher incidences of stroke (A: 18.9% (n = 149); B: 3.2% (n = 4); p: 0.001). Levels of serum lactate from the preoperative period until days 2-4 were significantly increased in the malperfusion cohort at all times. CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting malperfusion due to ATAAD may significantly increase the chance of early mortality in patients with ATAAD. Serum lactate levels were a reliable marker for inadequate perfusion from admission until day 4 after surgery. Despite this, early intervention survival in this cohort remains limited.

Valve-sparing David procedure via minimally invasive access does not compromise outcome.

Objectives: Aortic valve sparing-aortic root replacement (David procedure) has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. We compared our results of elective David procedure via minimally invasive access to those via a full sternotomy. Methods: Between 1993 and 2019, a total of 732 patients underwent a valve sparing root replacement (David) procedure. Out of these, 220 patients underwent elective David-I procedure (isolated) without any other concomitant procedures at our center. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 42, mini-access) or group B (n = 178, full sternotomy). Results: Cardiopulmonary bypass time were 188.5 ± 35.4 min in group A and 149.0 (135.5-167.5) in group B (p < 0.001). Aortic cross-clamp time were 126.2 ± 27.2 min in group A and 110.0 (97.0-126.0) in group B (p < 0.001). Post-operative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency ≤ I° in 41 (100%) patients of group A and 155 (95%) of group B. In-hospital mortality was 2.4% (n = 1) in group A and 0% (n = 0) in group B (p = 0.191). Perioperative stroke occurred in 1 (2.4%) patient of group A and 2 (1.1%) patients of group B (p = 0.483). Reexploration for bleeding was necessary in 4 (9.5%) patients of group A and 7 (3.9%) of group B (p = 0.232). Follow-up was complete for 98% of all patients. The 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-year survival rates were: 97, 97, 97, and 97%, in group A (mini-access) and 99, 96, 95, and 92% in group B (full sternotomy), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related re-operation at 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after initial surgery were: 97, 95, 95, and 84% in group A and 97, 95, 91, and 90% in group B, respectively. Conclusion: Early post-operative results after David procedure via minimally invasive access are comparable to conventional full sternotomy. Meticulous attention to hemostasis is a critical factor during minimally access David procedures. Long-term outcome including the durability of the reimplanted aortic valve seems to be comparable, too.

Improving survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients: do elderly patients benefit from expanded targeted therapeutic options?

INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have improved overall survival (OS) in mRCC patients over the last two decades. This single center retrospective analysis assesses if the purported survival benefits are also applicable in elderly mRCC patients. METHODS: 401 patients with mRCC treated at Hannover Medical School from 01/2003-05/2016 were identified and evaluated by chart review. Treatment periods were defined as 01.01.2003-31.12.2009 (P1) and 01.01.2010-31.05.2016 (P2). Age groups were defined according to WHO classes (≤ 60 years: younger, > 60-75 years: elderly and > 75 years: old). Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier analysis and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Median OS improved from 35.1 months in P1 to 59.1 months in P2. Sub-division into the respective age groups revealed median survival of 38.1 (95%-CI: 28.6-47.6) months in younger patients, 42.9 (95%-CI: 29.5-56.3) months among elderly patients and 27.3 (95%-CI: 12.8-41.8) months among old patients. Risk reduction for death between periods was most evident among old patients (young: HR 0.71 (95%-CI: 0.45-1.13, p = 0.2); elderly: HR 0.62 (95%-CI: 0.40-0.97, p = 0.04); old: HR 0.43 (95%-CI: 0.18-1.05, p = 0.06)). Age ≥ 75 years was an independent risk factor for death in P1 but not in P2. CONCLUSION: Improved OS in the targeted treatment period was confirmed. Surprisingly elderly and old patients seem to profit the most form expansion of therapeutic armamentarium, within the TKI-dominated observation period.

Is aortic valve-sparing root reimplantation (David-I) justified in cardiac redo surgery?

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve-sparing root reimplantation (AVSRR) is a complex procedure, which offers the benefit of preserving the native aortic valve. Cardiac redo surgery is complex and time-consuming, and it is not known if David procedure is safe or beneficial in this context. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2019, we performed a total of 544 elective AVSRR operations at our centre. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 30, redo) or group B (n = 514, first-time sternotomy). RESULTS: Aortic cross-clamp time was higher in the redo group (173[62] vs 125[31], P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was higher in the redo group as well (250[78] vs 179[51], P < 0.001). There were significantly more concomitant total arch replacements in the redo group (43.3% vs 5.8%, P < 0.001) using the 'beating heart' technique (20.0% vs 1.9%, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was comparable in both groups (3.3% vs 1.8%, P = 0.44). The rates for perioperative complications in terms of permanent neurological deficit and rethoracotomy were comparable between the 2 groups, too. Follow-up was complete for 99.6% of all patients and comprised a total of 584 patient-years. The 1-, 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates were 90%, 81%, 60% and 55%, in group A (redo) and 96%, 90%, 78% and 67% in group B (native, P = 0.16), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10 and 15 years after initial surgery were 96%, 92%, 92% and 92% in group A (redo) and 97%, 92%, 87% and 84% in group B (native, P = 0.52), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly more concomitant total arch replacements in the redo group, early mortality was comparable in both groups. We conclude that AVSRR can be performed in redo cardiac surgery without compromising the early postoperative outcome. Careful patient assessment and selection are mandatory when evaluating patients with a history of previous cardiac surgery for David procedure.

Health Benefits of Strategies for Carbon Mitigation in US Transportation, 2017‒2050.

Objectives. To quantify health benefits and carbon emissions of 2 transportation scenarios that contrast optimum levels of physical activity from active travel and minimal air pollution from electric cars. Methods. We used data on burden of disease, travel, and vehicle emissions in the US population and a health impact model to assess health benefits and harms of physical activity from transportation-related walking and cycling, fine particulate pollution from car emissions, and road traffic injuries. We compared baseline travel with walking and cycling a median of 150 weekly minutes for physical activity, and with electric cars that minimized carbon pollution and fine particulates. Results. In 2050, the target year for carbon neutrality, the active travel scenario avoided 167 000 deaths and gained 2.5 million disability-adjusted life years, monetized at $1.6 trillion using the value of a statistical life. Carbon emissions were reduced by 24% from baseline. Electric cars avoided 1400 deaths and gained 16 400 disability-adjusted life years, monetized at $13 billion. Conclusions. To achieve carbon neutrality in transportation and maximize health benefits, active travel should have a prominent role along with electric vehicles in national blueprints. (Am J Public Health. 2022; 112(3):426-433. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306600).

Frozen elephant trunk in acute aortic type a dissection: risk analysis of concomitant root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse whether full root replacement increases perioperative risks in patients who undergo frozen elephant trunk for acute aortic dissection. METHODS: Between March 2013 and December 2019, 115 patients underwent emergency frozen elephant trunk for acute dissection. Patients without root replacement were assigned to group A, while patients with concomitant full root replacement to group B. RESULTS: Mean age was 50.8 (12.5) years and 85 (73.9%) patients were male. Preoperative malperfusion was present in 49 (42.6%) patients. In group B, 27 (41.5%) patients received composite root replacement and 38 (33.0%) aortic valve-sparing David procedure. Cardiopulmonary-bypass and cross-clamp times were 252.5 (208.5-293.0) and 96.0 (40.5-148.0) min in group A, and 310.0 (274.0-346.5) and 121.0 (89.0-182.0) in group B (P < 0.001). Continuous myocardial perfusion was used in 40 (80.0%) patients of group A and 59 (90.8%) of group B (P = 0.098). Disabling stroke was present in 10 (20.0%) patients in group A and 12 (18.5%) in group B (P = 0.835). Thirty-day mortality was 12.0% (n = 6) in group A and 9.2% (n = 6) in group B (P = 0.630). The 1- and 5-year survival rates were 80% and 62% in group A, and 81% and 79% in group B. Logistic regression analysis identified age (odds ratio = 1.117, 95% confidence interval = 1.004-1.242, P = 0.041), cardiopulmonary-bypass time (odds ratio = 1.012, 95% confidence interval = 1.001-1.022, P = 0.029) and abdominal malperfusion (odds ratio = 17.394, 95% confidence interval = 2.030-149.013, P = 0.009) to be associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Full root replacement does not increase the perioperative risk in patients who undergo frozen elephant trunk for acute dissection. Careful patient selection is important for such complex procedures. Continuous myocardial perfusion can help reducing the risk for intraoperative complications during such complex operations.

Single-center experience with thoracoabdominal aortic replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome.

Objectives: Patients with Marfan syndrome are usually not suitable for endovascular repair of the thoracoabdominal aorta. This study was designed to analyze our center's experience with open surgical thoracoabdominal aortic replacement in Marfan patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study with prospective follow-up. Between January 1995 and September 2021, a total of 648 patients underwent thoracoabdominal aortic replacement at our center. Of these, 60 had Marfan syndrome and were included in this study. Results: The mean age was 39.5 ± 10.7 years, and 36 (60%) were male. Ten (17%) had aortic aneurysm, 4 (7%) acute/subacute dissection, and 46 (77%) chronic dissection. Patients presented with the following extent of aortic disease according to the Crawford classification: I-17 (28%), II-18 (30%), III-22 (37%), IV-2 (3%), and V-1 (2%). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 173.9 ± 84.7 minutes. Four (7%) patients required stent graft extraction. Postoperatively, 5 (8%) patients required rethoracotomy and 6 (10%) tracheostomy. One (1.7%) patient had permanent paraplegia and 2 (3%) permanent paraparesis. Two (3%) patients had stroke. One (1.7%) patient was discharged with dialysis. The 30-day mortality was 3% (n = 2). Median follow-up time was 21.5 (range, 9.4-33.6) years. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rate was 87%, 80%, and 68%, respectively. There were 16 aortic reinterventions in 9 patients during follow-up. Conclusions: Thoracoabdominal aortic replacement remains a complex procedure but can be done extremely safely in Marfan patients. Perioperative mortality rates are very low, and the long-term outcomes are enduring. Because endovascular aortic repair is not recommended for patients with connective tissue disease, open surgery remains an important cornerstone of therapy.

A Public Health Learning Collaborative on Climate Change for Urban Health Departments, 2016-2018.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this project was to demonstrate and assess approaches of urban local health departments (LHDs) to simultaneously address climate change, health, and equity; incorporate climate change into program practice; and participate in their jurisdiction's climate change work. METHODS: From January 2016 through March 2018, the Center for Climate Change and Health created learning activities, networking and relationship-building opportunities, communication platforms, and information sharing for 12 urban LHDs in the United States. We used administrative data and conducted interviews with participants and key informants to assess success in meeting learning collaborative goals. RESULTS: LHDs developed diverse projects that incorporated internal capacity building, climate and health vulnerability assessments, surveillance, and community engagement. Projects fostered greater LHD engagement on climate change, broadened community partnerships, and furthered LHD integration into jurisdictions' climate planning. LHD engagement helped shift the dialogue in the community and jurisdiction about climate change to include public health. CONCLUSIONS: LHDs have skills and expertise to rapidly partner with other governmental agencies and community-based organizations and to help communities identify vulnerabilities, take action to reduce the health harms of climate change, and-through Health in All Policies approaches and community partnerships-to ensure that climate policies are optimized for positive health and equity outcomes.

Optimizing the health benefits of climate change policies using health impact assessment.

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool that can be used to examine the potential health impacts of proposed climate change policies and offer recommendations to promote health and mitigate adverse health consequences of such policies. We used an HIA database, a literature search, and expert consultation to identify 12 HIAs of the proposed climate change policies from six states in the U.S. These policies included cap-and-trade legislation, heat-wave and sea-level-rise mitigation and adaptation, transportation policy impacts of climate change, carbon-reduction strategy scenarios, soil- and water-conservation strategies, urban forest canopy for climate adaptation, overheating buildings, and regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategies. In four descriptive summaries, we found that HIAs foster stakeholder engagement and provide useful health-promoting recommendations. HIAs can facilitate cross-sector collaboration, help optimize the health co-benefits of climate change policies, and raise awareness among decision makers of health impacts of those proposed policies.

Challenges and Opportunities for Advancing Work on Climate Change and Public Health.

Climate change poses a major threat to public health. Strategies that address climate change have considerable potential to benefit health and decrease health inequities, yet public health engagement at the intersection of public health, equity, and climate change has been limited. This research seeks to understand the barriers to and opportunities for advancing work at this nexus. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews (N = 113) with public health and climate change professionals and thematic analysis. Barriers to public health engagement in addressing climate change include individual perceptions that climate change is not urgent or solvable and insufficient understanding of climate change's health impacts and programmatic connections. Institutional barriers include a lack of public health capacity, authority, and leadership; a narrow framework for public health practice that limits work on the root causes of climate change and health; and compartmentalization within and across sectors. Opportunities include integrating climate change into current public health practice; providing inter-sectoral support for climate solutions with health co-benefits; and using a health frame to engage and mobilize communities. Efforts to increase public health sector engagement should focus on education and communications, building leadership and funding, and increasing work on the shared root causes of climate change and health inequities.