STRUCTURED ABSTRACT Objectives To determine whether presentation, risk assessment, testing choices, and results differ by sex in stable symptomatic outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Background Although established CAD presentations differ by sex, little is known about stable, suspected CAD. Methods Characteristics of 10,003 men and women in the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Sex differences in test selection and predictors of test positivity were examined using logistic regression. Results Women were older (62.4 years vs. 59.0) and more likely to be hypertensive (66.6% vs. 63.2%), dyslipidemic (68.9% vs. 66.3%), and to have a family history of premature CAD (34.6% vs. 29.3) (all p-values<0.005). Women were less likely to smoke (45.6% vs. 57.0%; p<0.001), while diabetes prevalence was similar (21.8% vs. 21.0%; p=0.30). Chest pain was the primary symptom in 73.2% of women vs. 72.3% of men (p=0.30) and was characterized as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” in 52.5% of women vs. 46.2% of men (p<0.001). Compared to men, all risk scores characterized women as lower risk, and providers were more likely to characterize women as having low (<30%) pre-test probability for CAD (40.7% vs. 34.1%; p<0.001). Compared with men, women were more often referred to imaging tests (adjusted OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.01–1.44) than non-imaging tests. Women were less likely to have a positive test (9.7% vs. 15.1%; p<0.001). Although univariate predictors of test positivity were similar, in multivariable models, age, BMI, and Framingham risk score were predictive of a positive test in women, while Framingham and Diamond and Forrester risk scores were predictive in men. Conclusion Patient sex influences the entire diagnostic pathway for possible CAD, from baseline risk factors and presentation to noninvasive test outcomes. These differences highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to CAD evaluation.

Introduction:The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for breast reconstruction. Many professional organizations initially placed restrictions on breast reconstruction, leading surgeons to conceive innovative protocols for offering breast reconstruction. This study reviewed the current evidence on breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide guidance for surgeons facing future crises. Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies (1) describing implant and autologous breast reconstruction following mastectomy and (2) occurring during or pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of the 1347 studies identified, 26 were included. Studies discussed type of reconstruction (18, 69%), complications (11, 42%), timing of reconstruction (10, 38%), protocols (10, 38%), COVID-19 screening (7, 27%), and length of hospital stay (7, 27%). The type of reconstruction varied depending on the stage of the pandemic: early on, autologous breast reconstruction was halted to preserve resources, but was later resumed. Within implant-based reconstruction, direct-toimplant was favored over serial tissue expansion. Several protocols were developed, with many emphasizing multidisciplinary collaborations for patient selection, use of specialized measures to reduce risk of COVID-19 transmission, and optimization of same-day discharge. Complication rates following breast reconstruction were similar to pre-pandemic rates. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the landscape of breast reconstruction by raising important questions about delivery of care, cost, and resource utilization. The findings of this review may inform surgeons as they plan for similar future crises or strive for improved patient care and efficacy even during nonpandemic times.

Background: Spring-assisted surgery is an accepted alternative to cranial vault remodeling for treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. The long-term safety and efficacy profiles of spring-assisted surgery have not been established. Methods: This study is a retrospective examination of all patients treated with spring-assisted surgery (n = 175) or cranial vault remodeling (n = 50) for sagittal craniosynostosis at the authors’ institution from 2003 to 2017. Data collected included demographic and operative parameters, preoperative and postoperative Cephalic Indices, and complications. Whitaker grades were assigned blindly by a craniofacial surgeon not involved in patients’ care. Results: The mean age at surgery was significantly lower for the spring-assisted surgery group compared with the cranial vault remodeling group (4.6 months versus 22.2 months; p < 0.001). Even when combining spring placement with spring removal operations, total surgical time (71.1 minutes versus 173.5 minutes), blood loss (25.0 ml versus 111.2 ml), and hospital stays (41.5 hours versus 90.0 hours) were significantly lower for the spring-assisted surgery cohort versus the cranial vault remodeling group (p < 0.001 for all). There were no differences in infection, reoperation rate, or headaches between the groups. The percentage improvement in Cephalic Index was not significantly different at 1 (p = 0.13), 2 (p = 0.99), and 6 (p = 0.86) years postoperatively. At 12 years postoperatively, the spring-assisted surgery group had persistently improved Cephalic Index (75.7 preoperatively versus 70.7 preoperatively). Those undergoing spring-assisted surgery had significantly better Whitaker scores, indicating less need for revision surgery, compared with the cranial vault remodeling group (p = 0.006). Conclusion: Compared with the authors’ cranial vault remodeling technique, spring-assisted surgery requires less operating room time and is associated with less blood loss, but it has equivalent long-term Cephalic Indices and subjectively better shape outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.