Increasing Diversity in Cardiology: A Fellowship Director\u27s Perspective

Introduction: Under-represented minority (URM) physicians, specifically African American, Asian (Filipino, Hmong, Vietnamese), Native American, Hispanic, and/or Pacific Islander, constitute only about 10% of practicing cardiologists. Although cardiology programs may face challenges recruiting under-represented minority applicants, concerted efforts to increase diversity may increase the likelihood of graduating minority cardiologists. However, there remains uncertainty regarding how best to recruit under-represented minorities and incentivize minority applicants to apply for cardiology fellowship training. As a result, the goal of this study is to survey current cardiology fellowship program directors regarding their views of diversity and recruitment of URMs. Methods: A questionnaire containing items that assess cardiology fellowship program demographics and characteristics, attitudes regarding diversity in cardiology, strategies to increase diversity, and responsibility to increase diversity was developed for submission to cardiology fellowship program directors. The list of cardiology program directors was abstracted from the FREIDA AMA Residency & Fellowship Database. An email containing a link to the electronic survey was submitted to current program directors. Data was collected from September to November 2020. Data was analyzed using standard statistical methods. Results: A total of 58 program directors (PDs) responded from 250 cardiology fellowship programs, constituting a 23.2% response rate. The majority of PDs (n=40, 69%) strongly endorsed the importance of diversity in their fellowship programs. The majority of the PDs (n=38,65.5%) believed that allowing applicants the opportunity to interact with URM cardiology fellows, directly recruiting URM to apply to their fellowship program (n=33,56.9%), and involving current program fellows in informal recruitment of URMs (n=32,55.2%) increased diversity. These strategies were implemented by 58.6% (n=34), 51.7% (n=30), and 63.8% (n=37) of PDs, respectively. Most PDs (n=40,70.2%) agreed that holistic review of applicants played an important role in diversifying the cardiology applicant pool and 75.4% (n=43) implemented this method. However, deemphasizing USMLE scores when reviewing URM applications (n=19,32.8%), expanding the fellowship selection committee to include URM reviewers (n=22,37.9%), and considering more IMG applicants (n=15,25.9%) were supported by fewer PDs. Furthermore, the majority of PDs (n=35, 60.3%) reported actively increasing the number of URM faculty members. Lastly, 66.7% (n=38) and 75.4% (n=43) of respondents indicated that residency and fellowship programs have the most responsibility to increase URM representation in cardiology fellowships respectively, while the ACGME, attending physicians, physician professional organizations, and government have less responsibility. Conclusion: The results of this study underscore the importance of diversity and inclusion in cardiology fellowship programs nationwide according to the views of program directors. Several of the strategies endorsed and implemented to increase URMs may be used to inform cardiology fellowship program directors of which interventions are being used in other programs, which programs are most supported by their peers, and which initiatives may yet need to be implemented. These findings may also be of value to medical students and resident physicians interested in applying to cardiology fellowships. Future research is needed to determine which strategies are most effective to increase URMs in cardiology fellowship programs in the United States

Low- Versus High-Dose Methylprednisolone in Adult Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Less Is More

Background: Corticosteroids use in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) improves survival; however, the optimal dose is not established. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving high-dose corticosteroids (HDC) versus low-dose corticosteroids (LDC). Methods: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted at a large, quaternary care center in Michigan. A corticosteroid dose change was implemented in the standardized institutional treatment protocol on November 17, 2020. All patients admitted with severe COVID-19 that received corticosteroids were included. Consecutive patients in the HDC group (September 1 to November 15, 2020) were compared to the LDC group (November 30, 2020 to January 20, 2021). High-dose corticosteroids was defined as 80 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses, and LDC was defined as 32-40 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression to mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge on supplemental oxygen, and corticosteroid-associated adverse events. Results: Four-hundred seventy patients were included: 218 (46%) and 252 (54%) in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality (14.5% vs 13.5%, P = .712). This finding remained intact when controlling for additional variables (odds ratio, 0.947; confidence interval, 0.515-1.742; P = .861). Median hospital LOS was 6 and 5 days in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively (P \u3c .001). No differences were noted in any of the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Low-dose methylprednisolone had comparable outcomes including mortality to high-dose methylprednisolone for the treatment of severe COVID-19

Low- Versus High-Dose Methylprednisolone in Adult Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Less Is More

Background: Corticosteroids use in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) improves survival; however, the optimal dose is not established. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving high-dose corticosteroids (HDC) versus low-dose corticosteroids (LDC). Methods: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted at a large, quaternary care center in Michigan. A corticosteroid dose change was implemented in the standardized institutional treatment protocol on November 17, 2020. All patients admitted with severe COVID-19 that received corticosteroids were included. Consecutive patients in the HDC group (September 1 to November 15, 2020) were compared to the LDC group (November 30, 2020 to January 20, 2021). High-dose corticosteroids was defined as 80 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses, and LDC was defined as 32-40 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression to mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge on supplemental oxygen, and corticosteroid-associated adverse events. Results: Four-hundred seventy patients were included: 218 (46%) and 252 (54%) in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality (14.5% vs 13.5%, P = .712). This finding remained intact when controlling for additional variables (odds ratio, 0.947; confidence interval, 0.515-1.742; P = .861). Median hospital LOS was 6 and 5 days in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively (P \u3c .001). No differences were noted in any of the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Low-dose methylprednisolone had comparable outcomes including mortality to high-dose methylprednisolone for the treatment of severe COVID-19

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Physiological mechanisms of QRS narrowing in bundle branch block patients undergoing permanent His bundle pacing

His bundle pacing is increasingly used to avoid chronic right ventricular pacing, and electrically resynchronize ventricular activation by narrowing or normalizing the QRS interval in left and right bundle branch block. The mechanisms by which this occurs remain poorly understood. In this review, the proposed mechanisms and evidence supporting them are discussed. Also discussed are aspects of mechanisms that are not completely supported by the evidence. We also review the differences and physiological bases for direct vs. indirect His bundle capture, and the physiological mechanisms for QRS narrowing vs. normalization following His bundle pacing

Rabbit whey acidic protein gene upstream region controls high-level expression of bovine growth hormone in the mammary gland of transgenic mice

International audienc