COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination-Induced Myopericarditis in an Otherwise Healthy Young Male: An Evidence-Based Approach to Differentiating From Perimyocarditis.

A 29-year-old male, otherwise healthy with no past medical history, presented to the hospital after a two-day history of pleuritic chest pain with a fever. He had received his first dose of the mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine (Moderna) two months prior without any adverse reactions. He received his second dose approximately 24 hours before symptom onset and hospital presentation. Work-up was unremarkable for respiratory, autoimmune, and rheumatological etiologies. The patient was found to have electrocardiogram features and symptoms in keeping with pericarditis, C-reactive protein elevation, and a peak high-sensitivity troponin level of 9,992 ng/L suggestive of a component of myocarditis. A dilemma arose regarding whether this patient should be diagnosed with perimyocarditis or myopericarditis, terms often used interchangeably without proper reference to the primary pathology, which can ultimately affect management. A subsequent echocardiogram was unremarkable, with a normal left ventricular systolic function, but cardiac resonance imaging revealed myocardial edema suggestive of myocarditis. Without convincing evidence for an alternative explanation after an extensive work-up of ischemic, autoimmune, rheumatological, and infectious etiologies, this patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced myopericarditis. The patient fully recovered after receiving a treatment course of ibuprofen and colchicine. This case explores how the diagnosis of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myopericarditis was made and treated using an evidence-based approach, highlighting its differentiation from perimyocarditis.

A radiological parametric comparison of low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis to degenerative spondylolisthesis - A retrospective approach to establish its dysplastic origin.

Objectives: This study aims to compare low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis (LS) and degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) radiologically. In addition, it seeks to identify underlying similarities between LS and DS. Methods: This study included patients with low-grade single-level spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 or L5-S1. They were categorized into LS and DS. Radiological features, including pedicle height, width, transverse, and sagittal angle, as well as anterior vertebral heights (AVH) and posterior vertebral heights (PVH), were measured using T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Results: The study involved 88 patients: 46 in the DS group and 42 in the LS group. In the LS group, the AVH was significantly higher than the posterior height at L4 and L5 (L4 PVH/AVH ratio 0.93 in LS vs. 0.96 in DS; L5 PVH/AVH ratio 0.84 in LS vs. 0.92 in DS), and pedicles were more medially oriented (L4: 19.62° in LS vs. 17.7° in DS; L5: 28.92° in LS vs. 26.47° in DS). In addition, at L5, the pedicle height (10.67 mm in LS vs. 11.48 mm in DS) and width (13.56 mm in LS vs. 14.37 mm in DS) were smaller compared to the DS group. Conclusions: Low-grade LS shows distinct radiological vertebral and pedicle anatomy compared to DS. Short and thin pedicles and wedge-shaped vertebrae in LS resemble DS, indicating its dysplastic origin.

Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report.

Purpose of program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day. Sources of information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics. Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Key findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic. Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward. Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Objectifs du programme: Devenir donneur de rein vivant est difficile, le principal obstacle étant le processus d'évaluation inefficace auquel les candidats doivent se soumettre. Ce processus comporte plus de 30 examens (p. ex. tests de laboratoire et tests diagnostiques), questionnaires et consultations avec des spécialistes. Les candidats donneurs font plusieurs visites dans les hôpitaux et cliniques, et passent souvent plusieurs mois à attendre des rendez-vous et des résultats de tests. En Ontario (Canada), le délai médian pour l'évaluation d'un candidat au don est de près d'un an. Les temps d'attente plus longs sont associés à de moins bons résultats pour les receveurs d'une greffe rénale, ainsi qu'à des coûts de soins de santé plus élevés. Un processus d'évaluation plus court et plus efficace des donneurs potentiels permettrait à un plus grand nombre de patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale de recevoir une greffe, y compris une greffe préventive (c.-à-d. permettant d'éviter la dialyse). Cet article décrit une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à augmenter l'efficience, l'efficacité et la personnalisation du processus d'évaluation des candidats au don. Nous avons développé une clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants (One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic), soit une clinique condensée où les candidats passent tous les tests et consultent un spécialiste dans la même journée. Sources de l'information: La clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants a été développée à la suite d'un examen approfondi de la littérature, de la consultation des commentaires de patients ayant donné avec succès et de rencontres avec les dirigeants du programme de transplantation du St Joseph's Healthcare d'Hamilton. Une équipe multipartite a été formée; celle-ci réunit du personnel soignant en néphrologie, chirurgie de transplantation, radiologie, cardiologie, travail social et médecine nucléaire, ainsi que des patients ayant une expérience vécue du don de rein. L'équipe s'est réunie régulièrement pendant les étapes de planification pour déterminer les objectifs, les paramètres et le calendrier de la clinique, ainsi que les critères de participation et le flux de patients. Méthodologie: Les donneurs potentiels qui avaient complété les tests de laboratoire initiaux et qui acceptaient de se soumettre à un processus accéléré ont été évalués à la clinique d'un jour. Si des tests supplémentaires étaient nécessaires, ceux-ci étaient effectués un autre jour. Les candidats ont été rencontrés par le néphrologue, le chirurgien de transplantation et le coordonnateur des dons environ deux semaines après leur visite à la clinique pour l'approbation finale. L'équipe multipartite continue de se réunir régulièrement pour examiner les commentaires des donneurs, discuter des défis et trouver des solutions. Principaux résultats: La clinique d'un jour, mise sur pied en mars 2019, est en activité depuis quatre ans et permet des améliorations itératives grâce à la rétroaction continue des patients et des soignants. À ce jour, plus de 150 candidats au don ont été évalués à la clinique. Les commentaires des donneurs sont quasi unanimement positifs (98 % des candidats ont déclaré être très satisfaits de la clinique), la plupart soulignant l'efficacité de la clinique et les conséquences minimes du processus sur les obligations professionnelles et familiales. La direction de l'hôpital, tout comme les professionnels de la santé des services participants, continue d'appuyer la clinique d'un jour et de collaborer à la création d'une expérience fluide pour les donneurs potentiels qui la fréquentent. Limites: Les places à la clinique sont limitées; ainsi, certains candidats au don d'un rein vivant pourraient ne pas pouvoir être admis dans le mois où ils se présentent à la clinique. Conclusion: Cette intervention d'amélioration de la qualité axée sur les patients est conçue pour augmenter l'efficacité du processus d'évaluation et bonifier l'expérience des donneurs de rein vivants. Elle vise également à améliorer les résultats des receveurs d'une greffe rénale et, potentiellement, augmenter le don vivant. La prochaine étape sera une évaluation formelle de la clinique, c'est-à-dire la mesure de la rétroaction qualitative des professionnels de la santé qui y travaillent et des candidats au don qui la fréquentent, et l'analyse des processus clés et des résultats des candidats évalués à la clinique d'un jour par rapport à ceux qui suivent le processus d'évaluation habituel. Cette évaluation du programme fournira des données probantes fiables et propres à la région qui pourront informer les centres de transplantation de tout le pays qui envisagent d'intégrer un processus d'évaluation similaire.

One-year Outcomes after Discharge from Noncardiac Surgery and Association between Predischarge Complications and Death after Discharge: Analysis of the VISION Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In previous analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. The authors set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to 1 yr after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between predischarge complications and postdischarge death up to 1 yr after surgery. METHODS: This study was an analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007 to 2013 of patients aged 45 yr or older followed to 1 yr after surgery. The study estimated (1) the cumulative postdischarge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and (2) the adjusted time-varying associations between postdischarge death and predischarge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis. RESULTS: Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative 1-yr incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5 to 6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (95% CI, 24.2 to 25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Predischarge complications were associated with 33.7% (95% CI, 27.2 to 40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0 to 17.9%) up to 1 yr. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [95% CI, 9.3 to 21.9%] of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.7%] within 1 yr), major bleeding (15.0% [95% CI, 8.3 to 21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [95% CI, 2.2 to 7.2%] within 1 yr), and sepsis (5.4% [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1%] within 1 yr). CONCLUSIONS: One in 18 patients 45 yr old or older discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within 1 yr, and one quarter were readmitted to the hospital. The risk of death associated with predischarge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge.

Effect of colchicine on perioperative atrial fibrillation and myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery in patients undergoing major thoracic surgery (COP-AF): an international randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers are associated with an increased risk of perioperative atrial fibrillation and myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug that might reduce the incidence of these complications. METHODS: COP-AF was a randomised trial conducted at 45 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged 55 years or older and undergoing major non-cardiac thoracic surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral colchicine 0·5 mg twice daily or matching placebo, starting within 4 h before surgery and continuing for 10 days. Randomisation was done with use of a computerised, web-based system, and was stratified by centre. Health-care providers, patients, data collectors, and adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment. The coprimary outcomes were clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation and MINS during 14 days of follow-up. The main safety outcomes were a composite of sepsis or infection, and non-infectious diarrhoea. The intention-to-treat principle was used for all analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03310125. FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2018, and June 27, 2023, we enrolled 3209 patients (mean age 68 years [SD 7], 1656 [51·6%] male). Clinically important atrial fibrillation occurred in 103 (6·4%) of 1608 patients assigned to colchicine, and 120 (7·5%) of 1601 patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·10; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 1·1%, 95% CI -0·7 to 2·8; p=0·22). MINS occurred in 295 (18·3%) patients assigned to colchicine and 325 (20·3%) patients assigned to placebo (HR 0·89, 0·76 to 1·05; ARR 2·0%, -0·8 to 4·7; p=0·16). The composite outcome of sepsis or infection occurred in 103 (6·4%) patients in the colchicine group and 83 (5·2%) patients in the placebo group (HR 1·24, 0·93-1·66). Non-infectious diarrhoea was more common in the colchicine group (134 [8·3%] events) than the placebo group (38 [2·4%]; HR 3·64, 2·54-5·22). INTERPRETATION: In patients undergoing major non-cardiac thoracic surgery, administration of colchicine did not significantly reduce the incidence of clinically important atrial fibrillation or MINS but increased the risk of mostly benign non-infectious diarrhoea. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Accelerating Clinical Trials Consortium, Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Division of Cardiology at McMaster University, Canada; Hanela Foundation, Switzerland; and General Research Fund, Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

Let's think beyond the pedicle: A biomechanical study of a new conceptual extra pedicular screw and hook construct.

Background: Transpedicular screws have proven the test of time, yet they are not devoid of complications. Many newer techniques such as 2 D and 3D fluoroscopy,O arm Navigation assisted surgery, robotic assisted surgery have come into existence to the increase precision in pedicle screw insertion. But, complications do occur in their presence. We propose an Extra pedicular screw and hook system (EPSH) system with similar biomechanical property, better safety profile and short learning curve compared to traditional pedicle screw. Purpose: To Compare the pull out strength of Traditional Pedicle screw Vs Extra pedicular screw and hook system(EPSH). Methods: Biomechanical testing was conducted according ASTM F543 guidelines to compare the pull-out strength of EPSH based construct and traditional pedicle screw construct. Six saw bone samples in each group considered. Screw of 5.5 mm diameter and length of 35 mm was used in both the groups. Pull out strength assessed by giving 5 mm/min axial load. The axial load Vs displacement of the screw were recorded and plotted. The maximum load required for screw failure is noted in both the group. Statistical analysis was done. Results: The mean peak load of pedicle screw group was found to be 1670.9 ± 393.2 N with mean displacement at peak load was found to be 13.44 ± 1.7 mm and in EPSH group it was 1416.4 ± 341.4 N and 15.78 ± 3.9 mm respectively. A paired t-test showed no statistical difference(p < 0.05) between 2 groups. Conclusion: EPSH has shown to have almost similar biomechanical property as that pedicle screw construct. With Addition of the hook, it provides an extra rotational stability as well. Being an extra-pedicular screw it has high safety profile and needs less expertise for insertion.

Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery : An International Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities are associated with vascular complications. Uncertainty remains about what intraoperative blood pressure to target and how to manage long-term antihypertensive medications perioperatively. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723). SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries. PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications. INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term. LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

Centralized Triage of Suspected Coronary Artery Disease Using Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Optimize the Diagnostic Yield of Invasive Angiography.

Background: Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is preferable to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis in elective patients without known CAD. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized interventional study involving 2 tertiary care centres in Ontario. From July 2018 to February 2020, outpatients referred for elective ICA were identified through a centralized triage process and were recommended to undergo CCTA first instead of ICA. Patients with borderline or obstructive CAD on CCTA were recommended to undergo subsequent ICA. Intervention acceptability, fidelity, and effectiveness were assessed. Results: A total of 226 patients were screened, with 186 confirmed to be eligible, of whom 166 had patient and physician approval to proceed with CCTA (89% acceptability). Among consenting patients, 156 (94%) underwent CCTA first; 43 (28%) had borderline/obstructive CAD on CCTA, and only 1 with normal/nonobstructive CAD on CCTA was referred for subsequent ICA against protocol (99% fidelity). Overall, 119 of 156 CCTA-first patients did not have ICA within the following 90 days (i.e., 76% potentially avoided ICA, due to the intervention). Among the 36 who underwent ICA post-CCTA per protocol, 24 had obstructive CAD (66.7% diagnostic yield). If all patients who were referred for and underwent ICA at either centre between July 2016 and February 2020 (n = 694 pre-implementation; n = 333 post-implementation) had had CCTA first, an additional 42 patients per 100 would have had an obstructive CAD finding on their ICA (95% confidence interval = 26-59). Conclusion: A centralized triage process, in which elective outpatients referred for ICA are instead referred for CCTA first, appears to be acceptable and effective in diagnosing obstructive CAD and improving efficiencies in our healthcare system.

Contexte: La coronarographie par tomodensitométrie (coro-TDM) est préférable à la coronarographie invasive chez les patients sans coronaropathie connue chez qui le diagnostic d'une coronaropathie n'est pas urgent. Méthodologie: Nous avons réalisé une étude interventionnelle non randomisée dans deux centres de soins tertiaires en Ontario. Les patients ambulatoires pour qui une coronarographie invasive non urgente a été demandée entre juillet 2018 et février 2020 ont été recensés par un processus centralisé de triage et se sont fait recommander de subir d'abord une coro-TDM. Les patients qui présentaient une co-ronaropathie obstructive ou dont les résultats se trouvaient tout juste à la limite de ce diagnostic lors de la coro-TDM se faisaient recommander une coronarographie invasive subséquente. L'acceptabilité de l'intervention, sa fidélité et son efficacité ont été évaluées. Résultats: Au total, 226 patients ont été sélectionnés et 186 ont été jugés admissibles. Parmi ces derniers, 166 ont accepté de subir la coro-TDM recommandée par le médecin (acceptabilité de 89 %). Parmi les patients ayant donné leur consentement, 156 (94 %) se sont d'abord soumis à une coro-TDM, et 43 (28 %) présentaient une coronaropathie obstructive ou des résultats limites selon cet examen. Seulement un patient ne présentant pas de coronaropathie ou présentant une coronaropathie non obstructive à la coro-TDM a été orienté vers une coronarographie invasive subséquente, contrairement au protocole (fidélité de 99 %). En tout, 119 des 156 patients s'étant d'abord soumis à une coro-TDM n'ont pas eu à subir une coronarographie invasive dans les 90 jours suivants (76 % d'entre eux ont potentiellement évité une coronarographie invasive grâce à cette première intervention). Parmi les 36 patients qui ont subi une coronarographie invasive après la coro-TDM, comme le recommandait le protocole, 24 présentaient une coronaropathie obstructive (rendement diagnostique de 66,7 %). Si tous les patients qui ont été orientés vers une coronarographie invasive et qui se sont soumis à cet examen dans l'un ou l'autre des centres entre juillet 2016 et février 2020 (n = 694 avant l'instauration; n = 333 après l'instauration) avaient d'abord passé une coro-TDM, une coronaropathie obstructive aurait été décelée lors de la coronarographie invasive chez 42 patients de plus par tranche de 100 patients (intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 26 à 59). Conclusion: Le recours à un processus de triage centralisé permettant de faire d'abord passer une coro-TDM aux patients ambulatoires dans une situation non urgente qui doivent subir une coronarographie invasive semble être un moyen acceptable et efficace de diagnostiquer la coronaropathie obstructive et d'améliorer l'efficacité dans notre système de santé.

High-sensitivity Troponin I Predicts Major Cardiovascular Events after Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Vascular Events in Non-Cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS), based on measurement of troponin T, is associated with perioperative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We therefore determined the high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) thresholds associated with 30 day MACE after non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: We performed a nested biobank cohort study of 4553 patients from the Vascular Events in Non-Cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Study. We measured hsTnI (ADVIA Centaur® hsTnI assay) on postoperative days 1 to 3 in patients ≥45 years undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An iterative Cox proportional hazard model determined peak postoperative hsTnI thresholds independently associated with MACE (i.e., death, myocardial infarction occurring on postoperative day 4 or after, non-fatal cardiac arrest, or congestive heart failure) within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 89/4545 (2.0%) patients. Peak hsTnI values of <75 ng/L, 75 ng/L to <1000 ng/L, and ≥1000 ng/L were associated with 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9-1.6), 7.1% (95% CI, 4.8-10.5), and 25.9% (95% CI, 16.3-38.4) MACE, respectively. Compared to peak hsTnI <75 ng/L, values 75 ng/L to <1000 ng/L and ≥1000 ng/L were associated with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of 4.53 (95% CI, 2.75-7.48) and 16.17 (95% CI, 8.70-30.07), respectively. MACE was observed in 9% of patients with peak hsTnI ≥75 ng/L vs 1% in patients with peak hsTnI <75 ng/L (aHR 5.76; 95% CI, 3.64-9.11). A peak hsTnI ≥75 ng/L was associated with MACE in the presence (aHR 9.35; 95% CI, 5.28-16.55) or absence (aHR 3.99; 95% CI, 2.19-7.25) of ischemic features of myocardial injury. CONCLUSION: A peak postoperative hsTnI ≥75 ng/L was associated with >5-fold increase in the risk of 30 days MACE compared to levels <75 ng/L. This threshold could be used for MINS diagnosis when the ADVIA Centaur hsTnI assay is used.Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT00512109.

Rationale and design of the colchicine for the prevention of perioperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing major noncardiac thoracic surgery (COP-AF) trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative atrial fibrillation (AF) and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) are common complications after noncardiac surgery. Inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of both disorders. The COP-AF trial tests the hypothesis that colchicine reduces the incidence of perioperative AF and MINS in patients undergoing major noncardiac thoracic surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 'COlchicine for the Prevention of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation' (COP-AF) trial is an international, blinded, randomized trial that compares colchicine to placebo in patients aged at least 55 years and undergoing major noncardiac thoracic surgery with general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria include a history of AF and a contraindication to colchicine (eg, severe renal dysfunction). Oral colchicine at a dose of 0.5 mg or matching placebo is given within 4 hours before surgery. Thereafter, patients receive colchicine 0.5 mg or placebo twice daily for a total of 10 days. The 2 independent co-primary outcomes are clinically important perioperative AF (including atrial flutter) and MINS during 14 days of follow-up. The main safety outcomes are sepsis or infection and non-infectious diarrhea. We aim to enroll 3,200 patients from approximately 40 sites across 11 countries to have at least 80% power for the independent evaluation of the 2 co-primary outcomes. The COP-AF main results are expected in 2023. CONCLUSIONS: COP-AF is a large randomized and blinded trial designed to determine whether colchicine reduces the risk of perioperative AF or MINS in patients who have major noncardiac thoracic surgery.

Storage conditions, sample integrity, interferences, and a decision tool for investigating unusual high-sensitivity cardiac troponin results.

The current definition of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays is laboratory-based and their analytical attributes and characteristics have drawn significant attention in the literature at least partly due to the lower concentration cut-offs and changes in concentrations (i.e., deltas) employed in different algorithms and pathways to manage patient care. We propose that pre-analytical conditions such as sample type, storage conditions, and other interferences may also have a significant impact on hs-cTn concentrations and clinical management. The purpose of this literature review is to provide a summary of important pre-analytical and interference studies affecting hs-cTn concentrations. A breakdown of the literature for the major diagnostic companies providing core laboratory instrumentation (i.e., Abbott, Beckman, Ortho, Roche, and Siemens) is also provided. Finally, three cases are highlighted where knowledge of pre-analytical factors aids the hs-cTn clinically discordant investigations. This review highlights the importance of pre-analytical variables, especially storage condition, sample handling, and blood tubes used (i.e., sample type) when interpreting hs-cTn assays. Additional studies are needed to further elaborate on pre-analytical variables (i.e., centrifugation, sample type, stability) and interferences for all hs-cTn assays in clinical use, as knowledge of these variables may aid in hs-cTn clinically discordant investigations.

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025. RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).

Rationale and design of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3): a randomized controlled trial evaluating tranexamic acid and a strategy to minimize hypotension in noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization. DISCUSSION: Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.

Normalized Subendocardial Myocardial Attenuation on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Predicts Postoperative Adverse Cardiovascular Events: Coronary CTA VISION Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Abnormalities in computed tomography myocardial perfusion has been associated with coronary artery disease and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We sought to investigate if subendocardial attenuation using coronary computed tomography angiography predicts MACE 30 days postelective noncardiac surgery. METHODS: Using a 17-segment model, coronary computed tomography angiography images were analyzed for subendocardial and transmural attenuation and the corresponding blood pool. The segment with the lowest subendocardial attenuation and transmural attenuation were normalized to the segment with the highest subendocardial and transmural attenuation, respectively (SUBnormalized, and TRANSnormalized, respectively). We evaluated the independent and incremental value of myocardial attenuation to predict the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Of a total of 995 coronary CTA VISION (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography and Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation Study) patients, 735 had available images and complete data for these analyses. Among these patients, 60 had MACE. Based on Revised Cardiovascular Risk Index, 257, 302, 138, and 38 patients had scores of 0, 1, 2, and ≥3, respectively. On coronary computed tomography angiography, 75 patients had normal coronary arteries, 297 patients had nonobstructive coronary artery disease, 264 patients had obstructive disease, and 99 patients had extensive obstructive coronary artery disease. SUBnormalized was an independent and incremental predictor of events in the model that included Revised Cardiovascular Risk Index and coronary artery disease severity. Compared with patients in the highest tertile of SUBnormalized, patients in the second and first tertiles had an increased hazards ratio for events (2.23 [95% CI, 1.091-4.551] and 2.36 [95% CI, 1.16-4.81], respectively). TRANSnormalized, as a continuous variable, was also found to be a predictor of MACE (P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that SUBnormalized and TRANSnormalized are independent and incremental predictors of MACE 30 days after elective noncardiac surgery. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01635309.

Effect of a Perioperative Hypotension-Avoidance Strategy Versus a Hypertension-Avoidance Strategy on the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: A Clinical Research Protocol for a Substudy of the POISE-3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients who take antihypertensive medications continue taking them on the morning of surgery and during the perioperative period. However, growing evidence suggests this practice may contribute to perioperative hypotension and a higher risk of complications. This protocol describes an acute kidney injury substudy of the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) trial, which is testing the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy). INTERVENTION: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients' mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg. CONTROL: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients' MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery. SETTING: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021. PATIENTS: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 µmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization. METHODS: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022. LIMITATIONS: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury.

CONTEXTE: La plupart des patients qui prennent des médicaments antihypertenseurs continuent de les prendre le matin d'une intervention chirurgicale et pendant la période périopératoire. De plus en plus de preuves suggèrent que cette pratique pourrait entraîner l'hypotension périopératoire et augmenter le risque de complications. Ce protocole décrit une sous-étude sur l'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) découlant de l'essai Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3). Cet essai teste l'effet d'une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire par rapport à une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension chez des patients qui subissent une chirurgie non cardiaque. OBJECTIFS: Cette sous-étude de l'essai POISE-3 vise à déterminer si une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire réduit le risque d'IRA comparativement à la stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Essai clinique randomisé à répartition 1:1 au groupe intervention (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire) ou au groupe témoin (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension). GROUPE INTERVENTION: Si la pression artérielle systolique (PAS) avant l'opération est <130 mmHg, tous les médicaments antihypertenseurs sont suspendus le matin de la chirurgie. Si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg, certains médicaments (excluant les inhibiteurs de l'enzyme de conversion de l'angiotensine [IECA], les antagonistes du récepteur de l'angiotensine [ARA] ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être poursuivis de façon graduelle. Pendant la chirurgie, la pression artérielle moyenne (PAM) du patient est maintenue à ≥80 mmHg. Dans les 48 heures suivant l'intervention chirurgicale, certains médicaments antihypertenseurs (excluant les IECA, les ARA ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être réintroduits par étapes si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg. GROUPE TÉMOIN: Les patients reçoivent leurs médicaments antihypertenseurs habituels avant et après la chirurgie. La PAM du patient est maintenue à ≥60 mmHg de l'induction de l'anesthésie à la fin de l'intervention chirurgicale. CADRE: Recrutement à partir de 108 centres dans 22 pays entre 2018 à 2021. SUJETS: Des patients (~6 800) âgés de 45 ans et plus atteints d'athérosclérose, ou présentant un risque de l'être, devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque et prenant des médicaments antihypertenseurs sur une base régulière. MESURES: Le principal critère d'évaluation de cette sous-étude est une IRA postopératoire définie par une hausse d'au moins 26,5 µmol/L (≥0,3 mg/dL) de la créatinine sérique dans les 48 heures suivant la randomisation ou d'au moins 50 % dans les 7 jours suivant la randomisation. MÉTHODOLOGIE: L'analyse primaire (par intention de traiter) examinera le risque relatif d'une IRA et l'intervalle de confiance à 95 % dans le groupe intervention par rapport au groupe témoin. Nous répéterons l'analyse primaire en utilisant d'autres définitions de l'IRA et nous examinerons la modification de l'effet en présence d'une insuffisance rénale préexistante (définie par un DFGe prérandomisation <60 ml/min/1,73 m2). RÉSULTATS: Les résultats de cette sous-étude seront analysés en 2022. LIMITES: Il n'est pas possible de procéder à l'insu des patients ou des prestataires de soins pour cette intervention; des mesures objectives seront toutefois utilisées pour évaluer l'IRA. CONCLUSION: Cette sous-étude fournira des estimations généralisables de l'effet d'une stratégie visant à éviter l'hypotension périopératoire sur le risque d'insuffisance rénale aiguë.

Functional Outcomes of Nerve Root Sparing Posterior Corpectomy in Lumbar Vertebral Burst Fractures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to document the safety and efficacy of lumbar corpectomy with reconstruction of anterior column through posterior-only approach in complete burst fractures. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed complete lumbar burst fractures treated with corpectomy through posterior only approach between 2014 and 2018. Clinical and intraoperative data including pre and post-operative neurology as per the ISNCSCI grade, VAS score, operative time, blood loss and radiological parameters, including pre and post-surgery kyphosis, height loss and canal compromise was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients, with a mean age of 38.89 and a TLICS score 5 or more were analyzed. Preoperative VAS was 7-10. Mean operating time was 219.56 ± 30.15 minutes. Mean blood loss was 1280 ± 224.21 ml. 23 patients underwent short segment fixation and 22 underwent long segment fixation. There was no deterioration in post-operative neurological status in any patient. At follow-up, the VAS score was in the range of 1-3. The difference in preoperative kyphosis and immediate post-operative deformity correction, preoperative loss of height in vertebra and immediate post-operative correction in height were significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The posterior-only approach is safe, efficient, and provides rigid posterior stabilization, 360° neural decompression, and anterior reconstruction without the need for the anterior approach and its possible approach-related morbidity. We achieved good results with an all posterior approach in 45 patients of lumbar burst fracture (LBF) which is the largest series of this nature.

Surgical Outcomes of Transpedicular Decompression with or without Global Reconstruction in Thoracic/Thoracolumbar Pott's Spine: A 7-Year Institutional Retrospective Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the radiological and clinical outcomes of transpedicular decompression in spinal tuberculosis (or Pott's spine) with and without anterior reconstruction using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or mesh cage. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The outcomes of transpedicular decompression with and without global reconstruction in Pott's spine are insufficiently investigated. Additionally, the use of PEEK cages in Pott's spine has remained unestablished. METHODS: Using the hospital records and imaging database obtained from January 2014 to January 2020, this study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent surgery for Pott's spine and met the eligibility criteria. RESULTS: This study included 230 patients with a mean±standard deviation age of 47.7±18.1 years (109 males, 121 females). The Visual Analog Scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Cobb angle were significantly improved in these patients (p<0.001). Patients who underwent anterior reconstruction had a greater correction in Cobb angle postoperatively (p=0.042) but also had a greater blood loss (p=0.04). During the follow-up, they experienced a significant loss of correction compared with those who only underwent transpedicular decompression (p=0.026). Nevertheless, patients who underwent anterior reconstruction using mesh/PEEK cages showed no significance difference in the clinical or radiological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Transpedicular decompression used in the surgical management of Pott's spine showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes. The additional use of anterior reconstruction obtained equivalent clinical outcomes but resulted in excessive blood loss. Meanwhile, the use of mesh/PEEK cage for anterior reconstruction did not affect the clinical and radiological outcomes.

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 8 acute care hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation. RESULTS: All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation. CONCLUSION: Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.