Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Cost Comparison among Traditional, In-House, and Commercial Options.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) has redefined surgery, improved precision and reduced the reliance on intraoperative trial-and-error manipulations. CASS is provided by third-party services; however, it may be cost-effective for some hospitals to develop in-house programs. This study provides the first cost analysis comparison among traditional (no CASS), commercial CASS, and in-house CASS for head and neck reconstruction. METHODS: The costs of three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative planning for mandibular and maxillary reconstructions were obtained from an in-house CASS program at our large tertiary care hospital in Northern Virginia, as well as a commercial provider (Synthes, Paoli, PA). A cost comparison was performed among these modalities and extrapolated in-house CASS costs were derived. The calculations were based on estimated CASS use with cost structures similar to our institution and sunk costs were amortized over 10 years. RESULTS: Average operating room time was estimated at 10 hours, with an average of 2 hours saved with CASS. The hourly cost to the hospital for the operating room (including anesthesia and other ancillary costs) was estimated at $4,614/hour. Per case, traditional cases were $46,140, commercial CASS cases were $40,951, and in-house CASS cases were $38,212. Annual in-house CASS costs were $39,590. CONCLUSIONS: CASS reduced operating room time, likely due to improved efficiency and accuracy. Our data demonstrate that hospitals with similar cost structure as ours, performing greater than 27 cases of 3D head and neck reconstructions per year can see a financial benefit from developing an in-house CASS program.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an immune-mediated inflammatory disease associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AF ablation in patients with RA. Methods: All patients with RA undergoing AF ablation at our institution from 2010 to 2021 were propensity matched to patients without RA using 9 baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was procedural efficacy defined by clinical AF recurrence, the need for antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), and repeat catheter ablation. Secondary outcome was safety. Results: A total of 45 patients with RA (age 66.3 ± 7.7 years) were matched to 45 patients without a history of RA (age 68.0 ± 7.3 years). Both groups had similar procedural and periprocedural characteristics. Before ablation, RA patients had statistically higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (P ≤.01) and erythrocyte sedimentation rates (ESRs) (P <.05) compared to non-RA patients. After ablation, RA patients had statistically significant higher rates of AF recurrence (P = .006), were more likely to be taking AADs (P <.05), and more likely to undergo repeat ablations (P <.05). The use of immunosuppression or corticosteroids at the time of ablation did not influence the primary endpoint of AF recurrence, AADs, or repeat ablation. Multivariate regression analysis showed CRP and ESR were independent predictors of AF recurrence. CRP was an independent predictor of repeat ablation. Conclusion: Patients with RA are at higher risk of clinical AF recurrence, and are more likely to be taking AADs and require repeat ablation. Preablation CRP and ESR are independent predictors of AF recurrence, and CRP is an independent predictor of repeat catheter ablation.

Ventricular nanosecond pulsed electric field delivery using active fixation leads: a proof-of-concept preclinical study.

BACKGROUND: Mid-myocardial ventricular arrhythmias are challenging to treat. Cardiac electroporation via pulsed electric fields (PEFs) offers significant promise. We therefore tested PEF delivery using screw-in pacemaker leads as proof-of-concept. METHODS: In 5 canine models, we applied nanosecond PEF (pulse width 300 ns) across the right ventricular (RV) septum using a single lead bipolar configuration (n = 2) and between two leads (n = 3). We recorded electrograms (EGMs) prior to, immediately post, and 5 min after PEF. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) and histopathology were performed at 2 weeks and 1 month. RESULTS: Nanosecond PEF induced minimal extracardiac stimulation and frequent ventricular ectopy that terminated post-treatment; no canines died with PEF delivery. With 1 lead, energy delivery ranged from 0.64 to 7.28 J. Transient ST elevations were seen post-PEF. No myocardial delayed enhancement (MDE) was seen on cMRI. No lesions were noted on the RV septum at autopsy. With 2 leads, energy delivery ranged from 56.3 to 144.9 J. Persistent ST elevations and marked EGM amplitude decreases developed post-PEF. MDE was seen along the septum 2 weeks and 1 month post-PEF. There were discrete fibrotic lesions along the septum; pathology revealed dense connective tissue with < 5% residual cardiomyocytes. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular electroporation is feasible and safe with an active fixation device. Reversible changes were seen with lower energy PEF delivery, whereas durable lesions were created at higher energies. Central illustration: pulsed electric field delivery into ventricular myocardium with active fixation leads.

Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization and Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: A prior hospitalization resulting from heart failure is associated with poor outcomes in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Less is known about this association in hospitalized patients with heart failure and whether it varies by ejection fraction. METHODS: Of the 25,345 hospitalized patients in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 22,491 had known heart failure, of whom 7648 and 9558 had heart failure with preserved (≥50%) and reduced (≤40%) ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF), respectively. Overall, 927 and 1862 patients with HFpEF and HFrEF had hospitalizations for heart failure during the 6 months before the index hospitalization, respectively. Using propensity scores for prior heart failure hospitalization, we assembled two matched cohorts of 924 pairs and 1844 pairs of patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively, each balanced for 58 baseline characteristics. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes during 6 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Among 1848 matched patients with HFpEF, HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and heart failure readmission were 1.35 (1.21-1.50; P <0.001), 1.34 (1.21-1.47; P <0.001), and 1.90 (1.67-2.16; P <0.001), respectively. Respective HRs (95% CIs) in 3688 matched patients with HFrEF were 1.17 (1.09-1.26; P <0.001), 1.32 (1.23-1.41; P <0.001), and 1.48 (1.37-1.61; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized patients with heart failure, a previous hospitalization for heart failure is associated with higher risks of mortality and readmission in both HFpEF and HFrEF. The relative risks of death and heart failure readmission appear to be higher in HFpEF than in HFrEF.