OMA orthology in 2021: website overhaul, conserved isoforms, ancestral gene order and more.

OMA is an established resource to elucidate evolutionary relationships among genes from currently 2326 genomes covering all domains of life. OMA provides pairwise and groupwise orthologs, functional annotations, local and global gene order conservation (synteny) information, among many other functions. This update paper describes the reorganisation of the database into gene-, group- and genome-centric pages. Other new and improved features are detailed, such as reporting of the evolutionarily best conserved isoforms of alternatively spliced genes, the inferred local order of ancestral genes, phylogenetic profiling, better cross-references, fast genome mapping, semantic data sharing via RDF, as well as a special coronavirus OMA with 119 viruses from the Nidovirales order, including SARS-CoV-2, the agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude with improvements to the documentation of the resource through primers, tutorials and short videos. OMA is accessible at https://omabrowser.org

OMA orthology in 2021: website overhaul, conserved isoforms, ancestral gene order and more

OMA is an established resource to elucidate evolutionary relationships among genes from currently 2326 genomes covering all domains of life. OMA provides pairwise and groupwise orthologs, functional annotations, local and global gene order conservation (synteny) information, among many other functions. This update paper describes the reorganisation of the database into gene-, group- and genome-centric pages. Other new and improved features are detailed, such as reporting of the evolutionarily best conserved isoforms of alternatively spliced genes, the inferred local order of ancestral genes, phylogenetic profiling, better cross-references, fast genome mapping, semantic data sharing via RDF, as well as a special coronavirus OMA with 119 viruses from the Nidovirales order, including SARS-CoV-2, the agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude with improvements to the documentation of the resource through primers, tutorials and short videos. OMA is accessible at https://omabrowser.org

Mechanisms, predictors, and evolution of severe peri-device leaks with two different left atrial appendage occluders.

AIMS Incomplete left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) due to peri-device leak (PDL) is a limitation of the therapy. The Amulet IDE trial is the largest randomized head-to-head trial comparing the Amulet and Watchman 2.5 LAAO devices with fundamentally different designs. The predictors and mechanistic factors impacting differences in PDLs within the Amulet IDE trial are assessed in the current analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS An independent core lab analysed all images for the presence or absence of severe PDL (>5 mm). The incidence, mechanistic factors, predictors using propensity score-matched controls, and evolution of severe PDLs through 18 months were assessed. Of the 1878 patients randomized in the trial, the Amulet occluder had significantly fewer severe PDLs than the Watchman device at 45 days (1.1 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001) and 12 months (0.1 vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001). Off-axis deployment or missed lobes were leading mechanistic PDL factors in each device group. Larger left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions including orifice diameter, landing zone diameter, and depth predicted severe PDL with the Watchman device, with no significant anatomical limitations noted with the Amulet occluder. Procedural and device implant predictors were found with the Amulet occluder attributed to the learning curve with the device. A majority of Watchman device severe PDLs did not resolve over time through 18 months. CONCLUSION The dual-occlusive Amplatzer Amulet LAA occluder provided improved LAA closure compared with the Watchman 2.5 device. Predictors and temporal observations of severe PDLs were identified in the Amulet IDE trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier NCT02879448

Teaching Strategies: Teaching Beyond the Basics: Young Children Participate in a Cognitive Apprenticeship: Tunde Szecsi, Editor

Community members have a variety of funds of knowledge they could contribute as specialists in collaborative experiences with teachers. Yet, despite having such invaluable culture capital, speciali..

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688

Optimal Timing of External Ventricular Drainage after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

External ventricular drainage (EVD) may be used for therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage to control intracranial pressure (ICP) after traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, there is currently uncertainty regarding the optimal timing for EVD insertion. This study aims to compare patient outcomes for patients with early and late EVD insertion. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, MEDLINE/EMBASE/Scopus/Web of Science/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for published literature involving at least 10 severe TBI (sTBI) patients from their inception date to December 2019. Outcomes assessed were mortality, functional outcome, ICP control, length of stay, therapy intensity level, and complications. Twenty-one studies comprising 4542 sTBI patients with an EVD were included; 19 of the studies included patients with an early EVD, and two studies had late EVD placements. The limited number of studies, small sample sizes, imbalance in baseline characteristics between the groups and poor methodological quality have limited the scope of our analysis. We present the descriptive statistics highlighting the current conflicting data and the overall lack of reliable research into the optimal timing of EVD. There is a clear need for high quality comparisons of early vs. late EVD insertion on patient outcomes in sTBI

Changes in preterm birth and stillbirth during COVID-19 lockdowns in 26 countries

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. Changes in PTB rates, ranging from −90% to +30%, were reported in many countries following early COVID-19 pandemic response measures (‘lockdowns’). It is unclear whether this variation reflects real differences in lockdown impacts, or perhaps differences in stillbirth rates and/or study designs. Here we present interrupted time series and meta-analyses using harmonized data from 52 million births in 26 countries, 18 of which had representative population-based data, with overall PTB rates ranging from 6% to 12% and stillbirth ranging from 2.5 to 10.5 per 1,000 births. We show small reductions in PTB in the first (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95–0.98, P value <0.0001), second (0.96, 0.92–0.99, 0.03) and third (0.97, 0.94–1.00, 0.09) months of lockdown, but not in the fourth month of lockdown (0.99, 0.96–1.01, 0.34), although there were some between-country differences after the first month. For high-income countries in this study, we did not observe an association between lockdown and stillbirths in the second (1.00, 0.88–1.14, 0.98), third (0.99, 0.88–1.12, 0.89) and fourth (1.01, 0.87–1.18, 0.86) months of lockdown, although we have imprecise estimates due to stillbirths being a relatively rare event. We did, however, find evidence of increased risk of stillbirth in the first month of lockdown in high-income countries (1.14, 1.02–1.29, 0.02) and, in Brazil, we found evidence for an association between lockdown and stillbirth in the second (1.09, 1.03–1.15, 0.002), third (1.10, 1.03–1.17, 0.003) and fourth (1.12, 1.05–1.19, <0.001) months of lockdown. With an estimated 14.8 million PTB annually worldwide, the modest reductions observed during early pandemic lockdowns translate into large numbers of PTB averted globally and warrant further research into causal pathways