Objectives Despite advances in screening and prevention, rates of premature coronary artery disease (CAD) have been stagnant. The goals of this study were to investigate the barriers to early risk detection and preventive treatment in patients with premature CAD. In particular, we: 1) assessed the performance of the latest versions of major international guidelines in detection of risk of premature CAD and eligibility for preventive treatment; and, 2) investigated real-life utilization of primary prevention with lipid-lowering therapies in these patients. Methods We included patients in the Study to Avoid cardioVascular Events in British Columbia (SAVE BC), an observational study of patients with premature (males ​≤ ​50 years, females ​≤ ​55 years) angiographically confirmed CAD. Eligibility for primary prevention and treatment received were assessed retrospectively based on information recorded prior to or at the index presentation with CAD. Results Of 417 patients (28.1% females) who met the criteria, 94.3% had at least one major cardiovascular risk factor. In the retrospective risk assessment, 41.7%, 61.4%, and 34.3% (p ​< ​0.001) of patients met criteria for initiation of statin therapy, and an additional 13.9%, 8.4%, and 46.8% may be considered for treatment using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology guidelines, respectively. Only 17.1% of patients received statins and 11.0% achieved guideline-recommended lipid goals before presentation. Diabetes and elevated plasma lipid levels were positively associated with treatment initiation, while smoking was associated with non-treatment. Conclusions The current versions of major guidelines fail to recognize many patients who develop premature CAD as being at risk. The vast majority of these patients, including patients who have guideline-directed indications, do not receive lipid-lowering therapy before presenting with CAD. Our findings highlight the need for more effective screening and prevention strategies for premature CAD .

No abstract

No abstract

econstructive options for patients with unilateral breast cancer include unilateral or bilateral breast reconstruction. Patients with increased genetic risk, strong family history of breast cancer, and young age at diagnosis may opt for a prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction Background: Various techniques for management of the contralateral breast exist in patients with unilateral breast cancer, including contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (PMIBR), and symmetrization techniques including augmentation, reduction, or mastopexy. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate and compare complications and patient-reported satisfaction of patients with contralateral PMIBR versus having symmetrization procedures. Methods: A 7-year, single-institution, prospectively maintained database was reviewed. Patient-reported BREAST-Q scores were obtained at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months prospectively. Postoperative complications, oncologic outcomes, and BREAST-Q scores were compared. Results: A total of 249 patients were included, 93 (37%) of whom underwent contralateral PMIBR and 156 (63%) of whom underwent contralateral symmetrization. The patients who underwent PMIBR were younger and had less comorbidities compared with patients with symmetrization. Rates of major and minor complications were similar, apart from higher rates of minor wound dehiscence in the PMIBR group. When comparing mean change at 12-month follow-up to preoperative results, there was a significant decrease in physical well-being of the chest in the symmetrization compared with the PMIBR group (2.94 versus −5.69; P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in mean breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being, and nonsignificant decreases in sexual well-being between groups. Conclusions: Patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent immediate contralateral breast management, with either contralateral PMIBR or symmetrization techniques, demonstrated similar profiles of major complications and good overall satisfaction except for one physical well-being domain. Management of the contralateral breast with symmetrization may provide similar outcomes compared with PMIBR, which often is considered not necessary in patients without specific indications.

Summary: Various treatment approaches exist for female-to-male subcutaneous mastectomy, also known as “top surgery.” The most commonly performed techniques for patients with decreased volume of breast tissue, no ptosis, and good skin elasticity continue to involve areolar or periareolar incision. Here, we report a case of a 17-year-old patient who underwent top surgery performed through power-assisted liposuction and a non-areolar single-incision “pull-through” technique. Operative management included initial liposuction for contouring of adipose tissue. Surgical subcision of excess breast tissue adherent to the subdermal plane was then performed and removed with a grasp-and-pull motion using the pull-through technique. We obtained a favorable result with low scar burden, preserved nipple sensation, and no nipple contracture. No complications were reported. This procedure is limited for patients with small breast size (A cup, <100 grams of glandular tissue per side), minimal to no ptosis, appropriate nipple size and position, soft fibroglandular tissue, and good skin elasticity.