Contemporary Early Postoperative Cone Repair Outcomes for Patients With Ebstein Anomaly.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the early postoperative outcomes after cone repair (CR) for Ebstein anomaly (EA) across the age spectrum. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this study, 284 patients from 1 to 73 years of age who underwent CR at Mayo Clinic from June 1, 2007, to December 21, 2018, were separated by age group (1-<4, 4-<19, 19-<40, and 40+ years) and by disease severity for analysis. Outcomes of interest included death, reoperation, readmission, early postoperative complications, cardiac intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and need for superior cavopulmonary anastomosis. RESULTS: Mortality within 30 days was 0%. The reoperation rate was 4.9% (n=14) and the median hospital length of stay was 5 days, with no statistical difference between ages at time of CR or severity groups. The readmission rate was 2% (n=6). Postoperative complications were seen in 8.8% (n=25) of cases overall, with higher rates in the youngest age group (21%, P<.001). Superior cavopulmonary anastomosis was most common in the youngest age group (37% vs 17% overall, P<.001) and in those with severe disease (35%, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Children and adults with Ebstein anomaly have very good early postoperative outcomes with a less than 10% complication and reoperation rate and very low mortality following cone reconstruction. In the setting of good and stable right ventricle function and no symptoms of heart failure or cyanosis, waiting for CR until 4 years of age may minimize early postoperative complications and need for superior cavopulmonary anastomosis.

Clinical implications of elective replacement indicator setting changes in patients with dual-chamber pacemaker devices.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine if single-chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual-chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Dual-chamber pacemakers often change from dual- to single-chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single-chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline). RESULTS: In Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes. CONCLUSIONS: Setting changes at ERI including a change from dual- to single-chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.

Marijuana in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease heart transplant listing: A survey of provider practices and attitudes.

Despite increasing legalization and use of marijuana, there is no consensus among pediatric heart transplant institutions or providers regarding users' eligibility for cardiac transplant. We sent a survey to pediatric and ACHD transplant providers (physicians, surgeons, transplant coordinators, and pharmacists) assessing their current institution's policies and their personal opinions about marijuana use in patients being considered for heart transplantation. Of the respondents, 84% practice in the United States and Canada. Most providers (80%) care for both pediatric and ACHD patients. Respondents included cardiologists (77%) and surgeons (11%), with the remaining being coordinators and pharmacists. Most providers (73%) reported their institution had no policy regarding marijuana use in heart transplant candidates. Only 20% of respondents' institutions consider mode of consumption, with 87% and 53% approving of oral and transdermal routes, respectively, and only 7% approving of vaporized or smoked routes. While 73% of providers would consider illegal marijuana use an absolute/relative contraindication to heart transplant listing, the number decreases to 57% for legal recreational users and 21% for legal medical users. Most providers personally believe marijuana to be physically and mentally/emotionally harmful to pediatric patients (67% and 72%, respectively). Many institutions lack a policy regarding marijuana use in pediatric and ACHD heart transplant candidates, and there is considerable disagreement among providers on the best practice. With increasing legalization and use of marijuana, each institution will have to address this issue thoughtfully to continue to provide high-quality, consistent, and equitable care for pediatric and ACHD heart transplant candidates.

Eliciting the Patient's Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient's agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient's discourse. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the extent to which patients' concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. MAIN MEASURES: Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians elicited the patient's agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient's agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7-22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3-19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians seldom elicit the patient's agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient's agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient's agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

Humor During Clinical Practice: Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about humor's use in clinical encounters, despite its many potential benefits. We aimed to describe humor during clinical encounters. DESIGN: We analyzed 112 recorded clinical encounters. Two reviewers working independently identified instances of humor, as well as information surrounding the logistics of its use. RESULTS: Of the 112 encounters, 66 (59%) contained 131 instances of humor. Humor was similarly frequent in primary care (36/61, 59%) and in specialty care (30/51, 59%), was more common in gender-concordant interactions (43/63, 68%), and was most common during counseling (81/112, 62%). Patients and clinicians introduced humor similarly (63 vs 66 instances). Typically, humor was about the patient's medical condition (40/131, 31%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Humor is used commonly during counseling to discuss the patient's medical condition and to relate to general life events bringing warmth to the medical encounter. The timing and topic of humor and its use by all parties suggests humor plays a role in the social connection between patients and physicians and allows easier discussion of difficult topics. Further research is necessary to establish its impact on clinicians, patients, and outcomes.