No abstract

OBJECTIVEAneurysm wall enhancement (AWE) on 3D vessel wall MRI (VWMRI) has been suggested as an imaging biomarker for intracranial aneurysms (IAs) at higher risk of rupture. While computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies have been used to investigate the association between hemodynamic forces and rupture status of IAs, the role of hemodynamic forces in unruptured IAs with AWE is poorly understood. The authors investigated the role and implications of abnormal hemodynamics related to aneurysm pathophysiology in patients with AWE in unruptured IAs.METHODSTwenty-five patients who had undergone digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and VWMRI studies from September 2016 to September 2017 were included, resulting in 22 patients with 25 IAs, 9 with and 16 without AWE. High-resolution CFD models of hemodynamics were created from DSA images. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the association between AWE and conventional morphological and hemodynamic parameters. Normalized MRI signal intensity was quantified and quantitatively associated with wall shear stresses (WSSs) for the entire aneurysm sac, and in regions of low, intermediate, and high WSS.RESULTSThe AWE group had lower WSS (p < 0.01) and sac-averaged velocity (p < 0.01) and larger aneurysm size (p < 0.001) and size ratio (p = 0.0251) than the non-AWE group. From multivariate analysis of both hemodynamic and morphological factors, only low WSS was found to be independently associated with AWE. Sac-averaged normalized MRI signal intensity correlated with WSS and was significantly different in regions of low WSS compared to regions of intermediate (p = 0.018) and high (p < 0.001) WSS.CONCLUSIONSThe presence of AWE was associated with morphological and hemodynamic factors related to rupture risk. Low WSS was found to be an independent predictor of AWE. Our findings support the hypothesis that low WSS in IAs with AWE may indicate a growth and remodeling process that may predispose such aneurysms to rupture; however, a causality between the two cannot be established.

BACKGROUND The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly disrupted both elective and acute medical care. Data from the early months suggest that acute care patient populations deferred presenting to the emergency department (ED), portending more severe disease at the time of presentation. Additionally, care for this patient population trended towards initial non-operative management. AIM To examine the presentation, management, and outcomes of patients who developed gallbladder disease or appendicitis during the pandemic. METHODS A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis, symptomatic cholelithiasis, or appendicitis in two EDs affiliated with a single tertiary academic medical center in Northern California between March and June, 2020 and in the same months of 2019. Patients were selected through a research repository using international classification of diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes. Across both years, 313 patients were identified with either type of gallbladder disease, while 361 patients were identified with acute appendicitis. The primary outcome was overall incidence of disease. Secondary outcomes included presentation, management, complications, and 30-d re-presentation rates. Relationships between different variables were explored using Pearson’s r correlation coefficient. Variables were compared using the Welch’s t-Test, Chi-squared tests, and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. RESULTS Patients with gallbladder disease and appendicitis both had more severe presentations in 2020. With respect to gallbladder disease, more patients in the COVID-19 cohort presented with acute cholecystitis compared to the control cohort [50% (80) vs 35% (53); P = 0.01]. Patients also presented with more severe cholecystitis in 2020 as indicated by higher mean Tokyo Criteria Scores [mean (SD) 1.39 (0.56) vs 1.16 (0.44); P = 0.02]. With respect to appendicitis, more patients were diagnosed with a perforated appendix at presentation in 2020 [20% (36) vs 16% (29); P = 0.02] and a greater percentage were classified as emergent cases using the emergency severity index [63% (112) vs 13% (23); P < 0.001]. While a greater percentage of patients were admitted to the hospital for gallbladder disease in 2020 [65% (104) vs 50% (76); P = 0.02], no significant differences were observed in hospital admissions for patients with appendicitis. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or operative rate for either group. However, for patients with appendicitis, 30-d re-presentation rates were significantly higher in 2020 [13% (23) vs 4% (8); P ...

Aims  Since 1968, heart transplantation has become the definitive treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. We aimed to summarize our experience in heart transplantation at Stanford University since the first transplantation performed over 50 years ago. Methods and results  From 6 January 1968 to 30 November 2020, 2671 patients presented to Stanford University for heart transplantation, of which 1958 were adult heart transplantations. Descriptive analyses were performed for patients in 1968–95 (n = 639). Stabilized inverse probability weighting was applied to compare patients in 1996–2006 (n = 356) vs. 2007–19 (n = 515). Follow-up data were updated through 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Prior to weighting, recipients in 2007–19 vs. those in 1996–2006 were older and had heavier burden of chronic diseases. After the application of stabilized inverse probability weighting, the distance organ travelled increased from 84.2 ± 111.1 miles to 159.3 ± 169.9 miles from 1996–2006 to 2007–19. Total allograft ischaemia time also increased over time (199.6 ± 52.7 vs. 225.3 ± 50.0 min). Patients in 2007–19 showed superior survival than those in 1996–2006 with a median survival of 12.1 vs. 11.1 years. Conclusion  In this half-century retrospective descriptive study from one of the largest heart transplant programmes in the USA, long-term survival after heart transplantation has improved over time despite increased recipient and donor age, worsening comorbidities, increased technical complexity, and prolonged total allograft ischaemia time. Further investigation is warranted to delineate factors associated with the excellent outcomes observed in this study.

No abstract