Application of machine-learning model to optimize colonic adenoma detection in India.

AIMS: There is limited data on the prevalence and risk factors of colonic adenoma from the Indian sub-continent. We aimed at developing a machine-learning model to optimize colonic adenoma detection in a prospective cohort. METHODS: All consecutive adult patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy were enrolled between October 2020 and November 2022. Patients with a high risk of colonic adenoma were excluded. The predictive model was developed using the gradient-boosting machine (GBM)-learning method. The GBM model was optimized further by adjusting the learning rate and the number of trees and 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: Total 10,320 patients (mean age 45.18 ± 14.82 years; 69% men) were included in the study. In the overall population, 1152 (11.2%) patients had at least one adenoma. In patients with age > 50 years, hospital-based adenoma prevalence was 19.5% (808/4144). The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) (SD) of the logistic regression model was 72.55% (4.91), while the AUCs for deep learning, decision tree, random forest and gradient-boosted tree model were 76.25% (4.22%), 65.95% (4.01%), 79.38% (4.91%) and 84.76% (2.86%), respectively. After model optimization and cross-validation, the AUC of the gradient-boosted tree model has increased to 92.2% (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning models may predict colorectal adenoma more accurately than logistic regression. A machine-learning model may help optimize the use of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04512729).

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Arterial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Angiography and Intervention: Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is a major impediment to reintervention in patients who underwent proximal transradial access (p-TRA) for coronary catheterization. Distal transradial access (d-TRA) at the level of snuffbox distal to the radial artery bifurcation is a novel alternative to p-TRA. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the incidence of RAO between p-TRA and d-TRA, along with access site-related complications. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for RCTs published since 2017 to October 2023 comparing d-TRA and p-TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model for procedural and clinical outcomes for the 2 approaches. A total of 18 RCTs with 8,205 patients (d-TRA n = 4,096, p-TRA n = 4,109) were included. The risk of RAO (RR 0.31, 0.21 to 0.46, p ≤0.001) and time to hemostasis (minutes) (MD -51.18, -70.62 to -31.73, p <0.001) was significantly lower in the d-TRA group. Crossover rates (RR 2.39, 1.71 to 3.32, p <0.001), access time (minutes) (MD 0.93, 0.50 to 1.37, p <0.001), procedural pain (MD 0.46, 0.13 to 0.79, p = 0.006), and multiple puncture attempts (RR 2.13, 1.10 to 4.11, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the d-TRA group. The use of d-TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention is associated with a lower risk of RAO at the forearm and may preserve p-TRA site for reintervention in selective patients by reducing the incidence of RAO.

Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole and itopride in patients with overlap of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia: A prospective, open-label, single-arm pilot study.

Background and Aim: Combining proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with prokinetics can provide synergistic action in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and overlapping dyspepsia, but data regarding this is lacking. Methods: This single-center, prospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 6-week treatment with fixed-drug combination (FDC) of pantoprazole (PPI) and itopride (prokinetic) in 50 patients with ≥3 month history of GERD and overlapping dyspepsia refractory to pantoprazole. Efficacy was assessed as reduction in GERD symptom assessment scale (GSAS) distress score for 15 symptoms from baseline to week 6. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored up to week 6. Results: Although heartburn was the most common symptom at week 6 (26.8%), its frequency significantly decreased from baseline (84.0%; P <0.01). A similar trend was observed for other symptoms: pressure/discomfort inside chest (19.5%), belching (14.6%), regurgitation (12.2%), bloating (9.8%), flatulence (9.8%), early satiety (7.3%), acidic/sour taste in mouth (7.3%), nausea (7.3%), frequent gurgling in stomach/belly (4.9%), and pressure/lump in throat (2.4%). Mean distress scores of all symptoms markedly decreased at week 6. Three AEs (n = 2) of moderate intensity were reported. Conclusion: The FDC of pantoprazole and itopride showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with GERD and overlapping dyspepsia refractory to pantoprazole monotherapy. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted.

Defining "true acid reflux" after peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The symptoms of reflux in achalasia patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are believed to result from gastroesophageal reflux, and the current treatment primarily focuses on acid suppression. Nevertheless, other factors such as nonreflux acidification caused by fermentation or stasis might play a role. This study aimed to identify patients with "true acid reflux" who actually require acid suppression and fundoplication. METHODS: In this prospective large cohort study, the primary objective was to assess the incidence and risk factors for true acid reflux in achalasia patients undergoing POEM. Acid reflux with normal and delayed clearance defined true acid reflux, whereas other patterns were labeled as nonreflux acidification patterns on manual analysis of pH tracings. These findings were corroborated with a symptom questionnaire, esophagogastroscopy, esophageal manometry, and timed barium esophagogram at 3 months after the POEM procedure. RESULTS: Fifty-four achalasia patients aged 18 to 80 years (mean age, 41.1 ± 12.8 years; 59.3% men; 90.7% with type II achalasia) underwent POEM, which resulted in a significant mean Eckardt score improvement (6.7 to 1.6, P < .05). True acid reflux was noted in 29.6% of patients as compared with 64.8% on automated analysis. Acid fermentation was the predominant acidification pattern seen in 42.7% of patients. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, increasing age (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27; P = .04) and preprocedural integrated relaxation pressure (IRP; odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.30; P = .02) were significantly associated with true acid reflux in patients after undergoing POEM. CONCLUSIONS: A manual review of pH tracings helps to identify true acid reflux in patients with achalasia after undergoing POEM. Preprocedural IRP can be a predictive factor in determining patients at risk for this outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04951739.).

Role of Novel Motorized Enteroscopy in the Evaluation of Small Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has recently been introduced for small bowel evaluation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE for evaluation of small bowel diseases. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Embase, PubMed, Medline databases for studies evaluating MSE between January -2010 and October-2022. The primary outcome of the study was diagnostic yield with MSE. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), rate of pan-enteroscopy and adverse events. RESULTS: 10 studies with 961 patients [581 (60.5%) males] were included in the analysis. 1068 MSE procedures were performed by antegrade route in 698, retrograde route in 215 and bidirectional in 155 patients. Technical success was achieved in 94.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 96.4%) procedures. The pooled diagnostic yield of MSE was 73.7% (95% CI 70.7% to 76.4%). Pooled rate of pan-enteroscopy by antegrade route was 21.9% (95% CI 18.1% to 26.1%), retrograde route was 6.9% (95% CI 2.4% to 18.3%) and combined route was 61.2% (95% CI 52.4% to 69.3%). Pooled rate of major adverse events was 1.9% (95% CI 1.2% to 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: MSE is a safe and effective tool for evaluating small bowel disorders. High diagnostic yield and low rate of adverse events make it a potential alternative to balloon enteroscopy. However, comparative trials are required in the future.

Outcome of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Cancer Patients: A Review.

Atrial fibrillation (AF), a cardiac arrhythmia, exhibits a heightened prevalence among individuals diagnosed with cancer, notably prominent in cases of lung and gastrointestinal malignancies. Robust evidence from extensive studies underscores this association, emphasizing its clinical significance. However, the precise mechanistic underpinnings and specific risk factors linking cancer and AF remain a subject of incomplete understanding. Notably, the prevalence of AF in cancer patients substantially exceeds that in non-cancer counterparts, prompting further exploration of the underlying pathophysiological processes. This review aims to address the existing knowledge void regarding AF management in cancer patients, with a specific focus on the potential role of ablation procedures. While catheter and surgical ablation techniques have been thoroughly investigated and validated as effective treatments within non-cancer populations, their applicability and outcomes in cancer patients have remained inadequately explored. The principal objective of this exhaustive review is to bridge this research gap by conducting a meticulous examination of the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ablation interventions for AF in the context of cancer patients. By amalgamating existing evidence and pinpointing critical areas necessitating additional investigation, this review endeavors to provide invaluable insights into AF management in cancer patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing their clinical care and optimizing outcomes.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a new horizon in endohepatology.

Video 1Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: Experience from a single large tertiary care centre.

Background and study aims Capsule endoscopy (CE) has transformed examination of the small bowel (SB), once considered a dark continent. The present study aimed to describe the indications, diagnostic yield, practical issues and complications of CE in one of the largest tertiary center in India. Patients and methods This retrospective analysis from a prospectively maintained database, conducted from January 2013 to June 2021 included 1155 CEs performed during this period. Patient medical records were reviewed for indications, results, and complications of CE. Results A total of 1154 patients (809 males and 345 females), mean age 53 years (range 6-87 years), one capsule got stuck in the esophagus, were included in the study. Active SB bleeding had no effect on SB transit time (324.7±161 minutes, n = 137 patients with active bleed vs 310.6±166.9 minutes, n = 1017 patients without active bleed; P = 0.35). The indication and diagnostic yield (DY) of CE were potential overt SB bleed (68.6% & 43.9%), potential occult SB bleed (8.2% and 40%), chronic diarrhea (7.9% and 28.4%), abdominal pain (6.5% and 21.3%), anemia (5.9% and 57.9%), and suspected/known case of Crohn's disease (2.3% & 56.5%) respectively. The DY for patients with age ≥60 years was similar to those with age < 60 years (61.9% vs. 51.8% respectively; P = 0.4). 21 patients (1.8%) had capsule retention of which six (0.5%) had to be referred for surgery. Conclusions CE is a safe and effective investigation with ever increasing range of indications. Potential SB bleed remains the most common indication for CE with high detection rate.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing the Total Enteroscopy Rate and Diagnostic Efficacy of Novel Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy and Single-Balloon Enteroscopy in Patients With Small-Bowel Disorders: The Motor Trial (NCT 05548140).

INTRODUCTION: Device-assisted enteroscopy has revolutionized the management of small-bowel disorders (SBD). No study to date has compared both novel motorized spiral enteroscopy (NMSE) and single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) as a randomized controlled trial. Hence, this study was planned to include patients having SBD with the primary aim to compare the total enteroscopy rate (TER). METHODS: This study was conducted at the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG Hospitals), Hyderabad, India, from September 20, 2022, to December 15, 2022. All consecutive patients, older than 18 years with suspected SBD, and planned for total enteroscopy were screened for inclusion. The primary outcome was to compare the TER, and secondary outcomes were to compare the technical success, time taken to reach the depth of maximal insertion, withdrawal time, total procedure time, diagnostic yield, therapeutic success, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Seventy-two patients of the 110 patients screened were randomized in either NMSE (n = 35) or SBE (n = 37) group. The most common indication for the procedures was obscure gastrointestinal bleed (48%), others being unexplained abdominal pain with indeterminate radiologic findings (32%) and chronic diarrhea (20%). In NMSE group, the TER was 71.4%, whereas in the SBE group, it was 10.8% ( P < 0.0001). The total procedure time (minutes) was much lesser with NMSE (58.17 ± 21.5 minutes) vs SBE (114.2 ± 33.5 minutes) ( P < 0.0001). The diagnostic yield of NMSE (80%) was comparatively higher than SBE (62.1%) ( P = 0.096). Minor AE (grade I) were observed in both the groups: NMSE 8.5% (3/35) and SBE 5.4% (2/37). DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial shows that with NMSE higher TER can be achieved in shorter duration with minimal AE, compared with SBE.

Differences in treatment and outcomes among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with and without standard modifiable risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There are limited data available on outcomes and pathophysiology behind ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in populations without standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs). The authors carried out this meta-analysis to understand the differences in treatment and outcomes of STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs. Methods: A systematic database search was performed for relevant studies. Studies reporting desired outcomes among STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs were selected based on predefined criteria in the study protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022341389). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using Covidence. Full texts of the selected studies were independently reviewed to confirm eligibility. Data were extracted from all eligible studies via a full-text review of the primary article for qualitative and quantitative analysis. In-hospital mortality following the first episode of STEMI was the primary outcome, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), repeat myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, heart failure, and stroke as secondary outcomes of interest. Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was used to estimate the effect. Results: A total of 2135 studies were identified from database search, six studies with 521 150 patients with the first STEMI episode were included in the analysis. The authors found higher in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.43; CI: 1.40-1.47) and cardiogenic shock (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.55-1.63) in the SMuRF-less group with no differences in MACE, recurrent MI, major bleeding, heart failure, and stroke. There were lower prescriptions of statin (OR: 0.62; CI: 0.42-0.91) and Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor /Angiotensin II receptor blocker (OR: 0.49; CI: 0.28-0.87) at discharge in SMuRF-less patients. There was no difference in procedures like coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, and thrombolysis. Conclusion: In the SMuRF-less STEMI patients, higher in-hospital mortality and treatment discrepancies were noted at discharge.

Technical performance and diagnostic yield of motorised spiral enteroscopy compared with single-balloon enteroscopy in suspected Crohn's disease: a randomised controlled, open-label study (the MOTOR-CD trial).

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have shown that motorised spiral enteroscopy (MSE) enables deeper and total small bowel evaluation compared with single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) in suspected Crohn's disease (CD) when analysed per procedure. However, no randomised controlled study has compared bidirectional MSE with bidirectional SBE in suspected CD. DESIGN: Patients with suspected CD requiring small bowel enteroscopy were randomly assigned to either SBE or MSE between May 2022 and September 2022 in a high volume tertiary centre. Bidirectional enteroscopy was done if intended lesion could not be reached on unidirectional study. Comparison was made with regard to technical success (ability to reach lesion), diagnostic yield, depth of maximal insertion (DMI), procedure time and total enteroscopy rates. Depth:time ratio was calculated to avoid confounding for the location of lesion. RESULTS: Among 125 suspected patients with CD (28% female, 18-65 years, median 41 years), 62 and 63 underwent MSE and SBE, respectively. The overall technical success (98.4 %: MSE, 90.5 %: SBE; p=0.11), diagnostic yield (95.2%: MSE; 87.3%: SBE, p=0.2) and procedure time were not significantly different. However, MSE appeared to have higher technical success (96.8% vs 80.7%, p=0.08) in deeper small bowel (distal jejunum/proximal ileum) with higher DMI, higher depth:time ratio and total enteroscopy rates when attempted (77.8% vs 11.1%, p=0.0007). Both the modalities were safe although minor adverse events were more common with MSE. CONCLUSION: MSE and SBE have comparable technical success and diagnostic yield for small bowel evaluation in suspected CD. MSE scores over SBE with regard to deeper small bowel evaluation with complete small bowel coverage and higher depth of insertion in a shorter time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05363930.

Healthcare Providers' Experience Using Telehealth During the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Predominantly Rural Patient Base: An Online Survey.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 led to the rapid adoption of telemedicine with a significant spike in the literature concerning the patients' perspective of its use. The providers' perspective has been less well studied. Med Center Health is a healthcare network that provides services in 10 southern Kentucky counties that are home to over 300,000 people with approximately 61% of this population living in areas defined as rural. The goal of this article was to compare the experience of providers serving a predominantly rural population to their patients and compare the experience of providers between each other based on the obtained demographic data. METHODS: An online electronic survey was developed and sent out from July 13th, 2020 to July 27th, 2020 for completion to the 176 physicians of the Med Center Health Physician group. The survey gathered basic demographic information, telemedicine use during COVID-19, and perceptions of telemedicine use during and the role of telemedicine after COVID-19. Perceptions of telemedicine were gauged using Likert and Likert-style questions. Cardiology provider responses were compared to the previously published patient responses. Differences between providers were also analyzed based on the demographic data obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-eight providers responded to the survey with nine providers indicating that they did not use telemedicine during COVID-19. Significant differences between eight cardiologists' and cardiology patients' perceptions of telemedicine visits were seen for internet connectivity (p < 0.001), privacy (p = 0.01), and clinical exam (p < 0.001) with cardiologists ranking these as more concerning or worse in all instances. These results continued when comparing perceptions of patients' in-person experience and providers' perception of telemedicine visits with significant differences observed with clinical exam (p < 0.001), communication (p = 0.048), and overall experience (p = 0.02). No statistically significant differences were seen between cardiologists and other providers. Providers who indicated more than 10 years of practice rated their experience with telemedicine significantly lower in the domains of effective communication (p = 0.004), level of care provided (p = 0.02), thoroughness of clinical exam (p = 0.047), patient comfort discussing concerns (p = 0.04), and overall experience (p = 0.048). Despite this, only three providers indicated that they would not use telemedicine post-pandemic with a majority indicating that they would feel comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up visits and medication refill visits. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to our knowledge to compare patient and provider satisfaction concerning telemedicine across a wide array of topics using Likert-style and Likert scale questions and the first to investigate the perception of providers who serve a predominantly rural patient base during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar results have been found in a few previous studies concerning telemedicine being less favorably rated by more experienced providers. Further studies need to be conducted to identify and correct the barriers that exist for providers and the adoption of telemedicine.

Diagnostic yield and technical performance of the novel motorized spiral enteroscopy compared with single-balloon enteroscopy in suspected Crohn's disease: a prospective study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Both single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and the novel motorized spiral enteroscopy (NMSE) are effective techniques for device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE). To date, no study has prospectively compared both modalities in suspected Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Patients with suspected CD undergoing either SBE or NMSE between March 2021 and December 2021 in a high-volume tertiary center were prospectively compared for technical success (ability to reach the lesion), diagnostic yield, depth of maximal insertion (DMI), procedure time, and total enteroscopy rates. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-seven patients (37.2% female; aged 7-75 years) with suspected CD underwent 201 DAEs. Technical success was 83% (SBE 81.5% vs NMSE 87.3%, P = .61) and impacted subsequent management in 92% (SBE 88.5% vs NMSE 97.8%, P = .2). Technical success with antegrade NMSE was significantly higher (81.4%) than antegrade SBE (33.3%, P = .007) for lesions in the proximal ileum and beyond. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield (SBE 80.8% vs NMSE 83.6%, P = .65). Median procedure time was significantly lower in both antegrade (NMSE, 40 minutes [range, 10-75]; SBE, 60 minutes [range, 20-180]; P < .0001) and retrograde (NMSE, 25 minutes [range, 20-60]; SBE, 60 minutes [range, 20-180]; P < .0001) NMSE. Median DMI was higher with antegrade NMSE (NMSE, 400 cm [range, 70-600]; SBE, 180 cm [range, 60-430]; P < .0001). The total enteroscopy rate was higher with NMSE (37% vs .7% with SBE, P < .0001). All adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Both NMSE and SBE are safe and effective for small-bowel evaluation in suspected CD. NMSE is superior to SBE with regard to deeper small-bowel evaluation with complete small-bowel coverage and shorter procedure time.

Application of Deep Learning Models to Improve Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Disease Activity Scoring Under Multiple Scoring Systems.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lack of clinical validation and inter-observer variability are two limitations of endoscopic assessment and scoring of disease severity in patients with ulcerative colitis [UC]. We developed a deep learning [DL] model to improve, accelerate and automate UC detection, and predict the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore [MES] and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity [UCEIS]. METHODS: A total of 134 prospective videos [1550 030 frames] were collected and those with poor quality were excluded. The frames were labelled by experts based on MES and UCEIS scores. The scored frames were used to create a preprocessing pipeline and train multiple convolutional neural networks [CNNs] with proprietary algorithms in order to filter, detect and assess all frames. These frames served as the input for the DL model, with the output being continuous scores for MES and UCEIS [and its components]. A graphical user interface was developed to support both labelling video sections and displaying the predicted disease severity assessment by the artificial intelligence from endoscopic recordings. RESULTS: Mean absolute error [MAE] and mean bias were used to evaluate the distance of the continuous model's predictions from ground truth, and its possible tendency to over/under-predict were excellent for MES and UCEIS. The quadratic weighted kappa used to compare the inter-rater agreement between experts' labels and the model's predictions showed strong agreement [0.87, 0.88 at frame-level, 0.88, 0.90 at section-level and 0.90, 0.78 at video-level, for MES and UCEIS, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first fully automated tool that improves the accuracy of the MES and UCEIS, reduces the time between video collection and review, and improves subsequent quality assurance and scoring.

The utility of ultrasound and computed tomography in the assessment of carotid artery plaque vulnerability-A mini review.

As the burden of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events continues to increase, emerging evidence supports the concept of plaque vulnerability as a strong marker of plaque rupture, and embolization. Qualitative assessment of the plaque can identify the degree of plaque instability. Ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) have emerged as safe and accurate techniques for the assessment of plaque vulnerability. Plaque features including but not limited to surface ulceration, large lipid core, thin fibrous cap (FC), intraplaque neovascularization and hemorrhage can be assessed and are linked to plaque instability.

From trial to practice: incidence and severity of COVID-19 vaccine side effects in a medically at-risk and vaccine-hesitant community.

BACKGROUND: The rapid authorization and widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States demonstrated a need for additional data on vaccine side effects, both to provide insight into the range and severity of side effects that might be expected in medically-diverse populations as well as to inform decision-making and combat vaccine hesitancy going forward. Here we report the results of a survey of 4825 individuals from southcentral Kentucky who received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021. As new versions of the vaccine are rolled-out, local initiatives such as this may offer a means to combat vaccine hesitancy in reference to COVID-19, but are also important as we face new viral threats that will necessitate a rapid vaccine rollout, and to combat a growing public distrust of vaccines in general. METHODS: Individuals that received two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021 were sent a survey, created by the research team. Respondents were asked to rate the incidence and severity of 15 potential side effects and two related outcomes following each of their two doses of the vaccine. All statistical analyses were carried out using SYSTAT, version 13. The data were analyzed utilizing a range of statistical tests, including chi-square tests of association, Cohen's h, Kruskal-Wallis test one-way nonparametric ANOVA, least-squares regression, and Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Significance was assessed using Bonferroni-adjusted criteria within families of tests. RESULTS: In general, the pattern and severity in side effects was similar to both clinical trial data as well as other published studies. Responses to the mRNA-1273 vaccine were more severe than to BNT162b2, though all were generally in the mild to moderate category. Individuals who reported having previously tested positive for COVID-19 reported stronger responses following the first dose of either vaccine relative to COVID-naïve individuals. The reported severity to the COVID-19 vaccine was positively correlated with self-reported responses to other vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings allow broad-scale estimates of the nature and severity of reactions one might expect following vaccination within a clinically-diverse community, and provide a context for addressing vaccine hesitancy in communities such as ours, where locally-generated data and communication may be more influential than national trends and statistics in convincing individuals to become vaccinated. Further, we argue this community-based approach could be important in the future in three key ways: 1) as new boosters and modified vaccines re-volatilize vaccine hesitancy, 2) as new vaccines receive similar testing and rapid authorization, and 3) to combat vaccine hesitancy in other arenas (e.g., annual vaccines, childhood vaccines).

Angina pain associated with isolated R-IIP modified Lipton classification coronary artery anomaly.

We report a case of a patient that presented with typical angina pain and associated risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD). Subsequent cardiac catheterisation led to the discovery of an isolated R-IIP modified Lipton classification coronary artery anomaly with follow-up coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) confirmation. This case report includes images of the CCTA and left heart catheterisation results, along with a discussion of the potential for increased risk of atherosclerosis in our patient, and a proposed explanation of his presentation with prototypical angina pain, despite lack of apparent atherosclerosis.

Personal protective equipment and adverse dermatological reactions among healthcare workers: Survey observations from the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: The pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ±â€Š0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ±â€Š0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.