Update on COVID-19 Myocarditis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) gained worldwide attention at the end of 2019 when it was identified to cause severe respiratory distress syndrome. While it primarily affects the respiratory system, we now have evidence that it affects multiple organ systems in the human body. Cardiac manifestations may include myocarditis, life threatening arrhythmias, acute coronary syndrome, systolic heart failure, and cardiogenic shock. Myocarditis is increasingly recognized as a complication of Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) and may result from direct viral injury or from exaggerated host immune response. The diagnosis is established similar to other etiologies, and is based on detailed history, clinical exam, laboratory findings and non-invasive imaging studies. When available, cardiac MRI is the preferred imaging modality. Endomyocardial biopsy may be performed if the diagnosis remains uncertain. Current management is mainly supportive with the potential addition of interventions recommended for severe COVID-19 disease, such as remdesivir, steroids, and convalescent plasma. In the setting of cardiogenic shock and refractory, life-threatening arrhythmias that persist despite medical therapy, advanced mechanical circulatory support devices should be considered. Ultimately, early recognition and aggressive intervention are key factors in reducing morbidity and mortality. Our management strategy is expected to evolve further as we learn more about COVID-19 disease and the associated cardiac complications.

Laypeople's (Mis)Understanding of Common Medical Acronyms.

OBJECTIVES: Abbreviations are often used in medicine yet may be a source of confusion for patients and their families. We aimed to determine the general public's understanding of commonly used medical acronyms. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we surveyed state fair visitors regarding their understanding of 5 common medical acronyms. An electronic survey was administered to a volunteer sample of adults who spoke and read English and who had never trained to work in medicine or nursing. Free-text responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect by 2 independent researchers, adding a third researcher if consensus was not reached. Analysis methods included descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We recruited 204 volunteers (55% female; mean age 43 years; 67% had a bachelor's degree or higher). ED (emergency department) was correctly defined by 32%, PCP (primary care provider/physician) by 18%, CBC (complete blood count) by 14%, and PRN (as needed) and NPO (nothing by mouth) by 13% each. Female gender was associated with higher odds of correctly understanding NPO (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-8.21; P = .02); older age was associated with higher odds of understanding PRN (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.05; P = .04). Education level was not found to correlate significantly with successful explanation of any tested acronym. CONCLUSIONS: Medical acronyms are a predictable source of miscommunication. In this large cross-sectional study, none of the acronyms evaluated was understood correctly by more than one-third of adults. Clinicians should avoid using acronyms with patients and families to minimize confusion.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Clinical Outcomes of Simultaneous Heart/Kidney Transplant Recipients in the Pre- and Post-heart Allocation Policy Change Eras.

BACKGROUND: The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices (intra-aortic balloon pump; Impella 2.5, CP, 5.0; venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) increased significantly across the United States for heart transplant candidates after the allocation policy change. Whether this practice change also affected simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) candidates and recipient survival is understudied. METHODS: We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database to identify adult SHK recipients between January 2010 and March 2022. The population was stratified into pre- and post-heart allocation change cohorts. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare 1-y survival rates. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the effect of allocation period on patient survival. Recipient outcomes bridged with eligible tMCS devices were compared in the post-heart allocation era. In a separate analysis, SHK waitlist mortality was evaluated between the allocation eras. RESULTS: A total of 1548 SHK recipients were identified, and 1102 were included in the final cohort (534 pre-allocation and 568 post-allocation change). tMCS utilization increased from 17.9% to 51.6% after the allocation change, with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use rising most significantly. However, 1-y post-SHK survival remained unchanged in the full cohort (log-rank P = 0.154) and those supported with any of the eligible tMCS devices. In a separate analysis (using a larger cohort of all SHK listings), SHK waitlist mortality at 1 y was significantly lower in the current allocation era ( P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the remarkable increase in tMCS use in SHK candidates after the heart allocation change, 1 y posttransplant survival remained unchanged. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-ups are needed to confirm these findings.

Jargon Be Gone - Patient Preference in Doctor Communication.

While it has been shown that healthcare providers often use medical jargon, less is known about how patients prefer their clinicians communicate. This mixed-methods study aimed to better understand the general public's preference in healthcare communication. A volunteer cohort of 205 adult attendees at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair was presented a survey with two scenarios at a doctor's office sharing the same information: one using medical terminology and one using simpler, jargon-free language. Survey participants were asked which doctor they preferred, to describe each doctor, and to explain why they believe that doctors may use medical terminology. Common descriptive themes for the jargon-using doctor included that this doctor caused confusion, was too technical, and was uncaring, while the doctor who spoke without jargon was perceived as a good communicator, caring/empathetic, and approachable. Respondents perceived a range of reasons why doctors use jargon, from not recognizing they are using words that are not understood to trying to make themselves feel more important. Overall, 91% of survey respondents preferred the doctor who communicated without medical jargon.

Accuracy in Patient Understanding of Common Medical Phrases.

Importance: Despite acknowledging that medical jargon should be avoided, health care practitioners frequently use it when communicating with patients. Objective: To characterize the understanding of common medical jargon terms by surveying a cross section of the general public and studying phrases that have established meanings in regular usage but different meanings in a medical context (eg, negative and positive test results). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, participants indicated their understanding of phrases that may have different meanings in medicine than in colloquial English via a mix of short answer and multiple choice questions. Several questions included paired phrases to assess for differences in understanding with or without jargon. Volunteers were recruited at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair near St Paul, Minnesota. An electronic survey was given to a volunteer sample of 215 adults (>18 years) who did not work or train to work in the medical field and spoke and read English. Exposures: Completing a written or verbal survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was an accurate understanding of the medical terminology. Free-text responses were coded by 2 researchers for comprehension. Secondary outcomes looked for associations between volunteer demographics and understanding. Results: The 215 respondents (135 [63%] female; mean [SD] age, 42 [17] years) demonstrated a varied ability to interpret medical jargon phrases. For example, most participants (207 [96%]) knew that negative cancer screening results meant they did not have cancer, but fewer participants (143 [79%]) knew that the phrase "your tumor is progressing" was bad news, or that positive lymph nodes meant the cancer had spread (170 [67%]). While most (171 [80%]) recognized that an unremarkable chest radiography was good news, only 44 participants (21%) correctly understood that a clinician saying their radiography was impressive was generally bad news. In each of the paired phrases comparing jargon vs nonjargon approaches, the nonjargon phrase was understood significantly better (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that several common phrases are misunderstood when used in a medical setting, with the interpreted meaning frequently the exact opposite of what is intended.

What's in a name? Laypeople's understanding of medical roles and titles.

BACKGROUND: Physicians regularly use jargon in patient communication, which can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVE: To assess the general public's understanding of names and roles of medical specialties and job seniority titles. DESIGNS: Volunteer participants completed an electronic survey, filling-in-the-blanks for 14 medical specialties (e.g., "pediatricians are doctors who take care of _____"), and ranked physician titles in order of experience (medical student, intern, senior resident, fellow, attending). SETTING: The 2021 Minnesota State Fair. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers >18 years old without medical or nursing training. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We summarized responses with descriptive statistics. Two researchers coded open-ended answers as correct, partially correct, or incorrect, with a third researcher for coding discrepancies. RESULTS: Two hundred and four participants completed the survey (55% female; mean age 43; 67% of respondents with a bachelor's degree or higher). Of 14 medical specialties listed on the survey, respondents most accurately identified dermatologists (94%) and cardiologists (93%). Six specialties were understood by less than half of the respondents: neonatologists (48%), pulmonologists (43%), hospitalists (31%), intensivists (29%), internists (21%), and nephrologists (20%). Twelve percent of participants correctly identified medical roles in rank order. Most participants (74%) correctly identified medical students as the least experienced. Senior residents were most often identified as the most experienced (44%), with just 27% of respondents correctly placing the attending there. We conclude that medical professionals should recognize that titles are a common source of misunderstanding among the general public and should describe their role when introducing themselves to minimize confusion.

COVID-19-Associated Myocarditis: An Evolving Concern in Cardiology and Beyond.

The direct and indirect adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the cardiovascular system, including myocarditis, are of paramount importance. These not only affect the disease course but also determine clinical outcomes and recovery. In this review, the authors aimed at providing an update on the incidence of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-associated myocarditis. Our knowledge and experience relevant to this area continues to evolve rapidly since the beginning of the pandemic. It is crucial for the scientific and medical community to stay abreast of current information. Contrasting early reports, recent data suggest that the overall incidence of SARS-CoV-2-associated myocarditis is relatively low, yet infected individuals are at a substantially increased risk. Therefore, understanding the pathophysiology and diagnostic evaluation, including the use of serum biomarkers and imaging modalities, remain important. This review aims to summarize the most recent data in these areas as they relate to COVID-19-associated myocarditis. Given its increasing relevance, a brief update is included on the proposed mechanisms of myocarditis in COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

Right Ventricular Dysfunction is Associated with Increased Mortality in Patients Requiring Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Respiratory failure caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with mortality. Patients unresponsive to conventional therapy may benefit from temporary venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). We investigated clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, particularly, right ventricular dysfunction, with survival in patients with respiratory failure caused by SARS-CoV-2. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients requiring VV-ECMO for respiratory failure from COVID-19 infection between January 2020 and December 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, and echocardiographic features of left and right ventricular (LV/RV) function were compared between patients who survived and those who could not be weaned from VV-ECMO. In addition, we evaluated outcomes in a separate population managed with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). In total, 10/17 patients failed to wean from VV-ECMO and died in the hospital on average 41.5 ± 10.9 days post admission. Seven were decannulated (41%) and survived to hospital discharge. There were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory parameters between groups. Moderate to severe RV dysfunction was significantly more in those who died (8/10, 80%) compared to survivors (0/7, 0%) (p = 0.002). Patients supported with VA-ECMO had superior survival with 5/9 patients (56%) decannulated and discharged. Moderate to severe RV dysfunction is associated with increased mortality in patients with respiratory failure requiring VV-ECMO for COVID-19.

Hypotension on cardiopulmonary stress test predicts 90 day mortality after LVAD implantation in INTERMACS 3-6 patients.

AIMS: Cardiopulmonary stress test (CPX) is routinely performed when evaluating patient candidacy for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The predictive value of hypotensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) response during CPX on clinical outcomes is unknown. This study aims to determine the effect of hypotensive SBP response during to clinical outcomes among patients who underwent LVAD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective single center study enrolling consecutive patients implanted with a continuous flow LVAD between 2011 and 2022. Hypotensive SBP response was defined as peak exercise SBP below the resting value. Multivariable Cox-regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between hypotensive SBP response and all-cause mortality within 30 and 90 days of LVAD implantation. A subgroup analysis was performed for patients implanted with a HeartMate III (HM III) device. Four hundred thirty-two patients underwent LVAD implantation during the pre-defined period and 156 with INTERMACS profiles 3-6 met our inclusion criteria. The median age was 63 years (IQR 54-69), and 52% had ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Hypotensive SBP response was present in 35% of patients and was associated with increased 90 day all-cause mortality (unadjusted HR 9.16, 95% CI 1.98-42; P = 0.0046). Hazard ratio remained significant after adjusting for age, INTERMACS profile, serum creatinine, and total bilirubin. Findings were similar in the HM III subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Hypotensive SBP response on pre-LVAD CPX is associated with increased perioperative and 90 day mortality after LVAD implantation. Additional studies are needed to determine the mechanism of increased mortality observed.

Say What? Quantifying and Classifying Jargon Use During Inpatient Rounds.

BACKGROUND: Although plain language is recognized as essential for effective communication, research reveals that medical providers regularly use jargon terminology that may be misunderstood by patients. Little is known, however, about the types and frequency of jargon used in the pediatric inpatient setting. We aimed to quantify jargon use by medical team members during inpatient family-centered rounds (FCRs) and to identify the most common categories of jargon used. METHODS: One of 3 trained medical students audited FCRs on a general pediatric service once weekly for 12 weeks, recording and categorizing jargon used with a published classification framework. Jargon usage was classified by category and quantified by using descriptive statistics. Rates were calculated by patient encounter and per minute. Feedback was provided to rounding teams after each observation. RESULTS: During 70 observed FCR patient encounters, there were a total of 443 jargon words or phrases spoken, of which 309 (70%) were not explicitly defined to the patient or family by the health care provider team. The mean number of undefined jargon words or phrases used per patient was 4.3 (±1.7), with a mean of 0.4 (±0.1) uses of undefined jargon per minute. The most common categories of undefined jargon used include technical terminology (eg, bronchiolitis), medical vernacular (eg, cultures), and abbreviations and acronyms (eg, NPO for "nothing by mouth") at 34%, 30%, and 17%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Undefined medical jargon was used frequently by health care providers during pediatric FCRs. We found it was feasible to measure provider jargon use and to use a jargon classification scheme to provide real-time, concrete feedback.