Assessing the criteria for definition of perimembranous ventricular septal defects in light of the search for consensus

BACKGROUND: Discussions continue as to whether ventricular septal defects are best categorized according to their right ventricular geography or their borders. This is especially true when considering the perimembranous defect. Our aim, therefore, was to establish the phenotypic feature of the perimembranous defect, and to establish the ease of distinguishing its geographical variants. // METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed unrepaired isolated perimembranous ventricular defects from six historic archives, subcategorizing them using the ICD-11 coding system. We identified 365 defects, of which 94 (26%) were deemed to open centrally, 168 (46%) to open to the outlet, and 84 (23%) to the inlet of the right ventricle, with 19 (5%) being confluent. In all hearts, the unifying phenotypic feature was fibrous continuity between the leaflets of the mitral and tricuspid valves. This was often directly between the valves, but in all instances incorporated continuity through the atrioventricular portion of the membranous septum. In contrast, we observed fibrous continuity between the leaflets of the tricuspid and aortic valves in only 298 (82%) of the specimens. When found, discontinuity most commonly was seen in the outlet and central defects. There were no discrepancies between evaluators in distinguishing the borders, but there was occasional disagreement in determining the right ventricular geography of the defect. // CONCLUSIONS: The unifying feature of perimembranous defects, rather than being aortic-to-tricuspid valvar fibrous continuity, is fibrous continuity between the leaflets of the atrioventricular valves. While right ventricular geography is important in classification, it is the borders which are more objectively defined

Nomenclature for Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Care: Unification of Clinical and Administrative Nomenclature – The 2021 International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) and the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)

Substantial progress has been made in the standardization of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care. In 1936, Maude Abbott published her Atlas of Congenital Cardiac Disease, which was the first formal attempt to classify congenital heart disease. The International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code ( IPCCC ) is now utilized worldwide and has most recently become the paediatric and congenital cardiac component of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases ( ICD-11 ). The most recent publication of the IPCCC was in 2017. This manuscript provides an updated 2021 version of the IPCCC . The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease ( ISNPCHD ), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), developed the paediatric and congenital cardiac nomenclature that is now within the eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This unification of IPCCC and ICD-11 is the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature and is the first time that the clinical nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care and the administrative nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care are harmonized. The resultant congenital cardiac component of ICD-11 was increased from 29 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-9 and 73 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-10 to 318 codes submitted by ISNPCHD through 2018 for incorporation into ICD-11. After these 318 terms were incorporated into ICD-11 in 2018, the WHO ICD-11 team added an additional 49 terms, some of which are acceptable legacy terms from ICD-10, while others provide greater granularity than the ISNPCHD thought was originally acceptable. Thus, the total number of paediatric and congenital cardiac terms in ICD-11 is 367. In this manuscript, we describe and review the terminology, hierarchy, and definitions of the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature . This article, therefore, presents a global system of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care that unifies clinical and administrative nomenclature. The members of ISNPCHD realize that the nomenclature published in this manuscript will continue to evolve. The version of the IPCCC that was published in 2017 has evolved and changed, and it is now replaced by this 2021 version. In the future, ISNPCHD will again publish updated versions of IPCCC , as IPCCC continues to evolve

Eastern asian expert panel opinion: designing clinical trials of molecular targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

The largest burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) lies in Asia, secondary to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Improved survival with sorafenib has fostered new research but many challenges remain in designing clinical trials. The disease, its management, and populations affected by it are heterogeneous worldwide and within Asia. An expert conference of Eastern Asian oncologists and hepatologists was convened to foster consensus in clinical trial design. The panel identified key areas that need to be addressed to facilitate clinical trials in Asia. Stratification by viral etiology is desirable within Asia and by region in global trials. Antiviral therapy should also be considered as a stratification factor and incorporated into HCC management in trials. The panel agreed that histological diagnosis is not required for trial entry and that Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging is acceptable for trials as long as portal hypertension can be better defined with standardized methodology. Consensus in treatment must be sought to allow multi-national trials and it must be recognized that first-line sorafenib is not largely feasible in Asia. Finally, Asian nations must be urged to participate in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, to advance new treatment options in this challenging disease