Effect of Indirect Neural Decompression by Minimally Invasive Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease and Its Limitations

Objective To study efficacy of minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MIS OLIF) to achieve indirect decompression in degenerative lumbar spine disorders. To find out amount of indirect decompression achieved by assessing clinical and radiological outcomes. To find out limitations of indirect decompression. Methods OLIF was carried out in 60 segments/45 patients having degenerative lumbar spine disorders from May 2016 to April 2018. Patients with infection, trauma, lumbar disc prolapse and listhesis >grade 3 were excluded. 53 segments had posterior and 7 segments had anterior fixation. Auto graft was used in 21 and artificial bone graft in 24 patients. Indirect decompression by MIS OLIF was achieved in all patients. Neuromonitioring was not used. Clinical assessment was done using Modified Macnab’s criteria. Radiological assessment was done on X-rays and MRI. Percentage improvement in foraminal height, disc height, segmental lordosis, spinal canal area and reduction in listhesis were measured. Statistical assessment was done using Paired‘t’ test. Results 60 segments of 45 consecutive patients were operated with 15 of them male and 30 female. Average age was 63 years. Minimum follow-up was for 1 month and maximum follow-up was for 18 months with average of 11 months. Single segment fusion was done in 31, 2 segment fusion in 13 and 3 segment fusion in 1 patient. Clinically 33 (73.33%) had excellent, 11 (24.44%) had good & 1 (2.22%) had fair outcomes. None required direct decompression. Radiologically; foraminal height improved by 26.27%, disc height 92.1%, segmental lordosis 3.4° and listhesis reduction was 6.8°, 41 segments studied on MRI had improvement in spinal canal area of 42.7%. Conclusion Indirect decompression by MIS OLIF is effective in decompressing the spinal canal with good radiological and clinical out comes. Direct decompression is avoidable with help of interbody distraction using OLIF particularly in patients with Schizas grade A, B, and C of lumbar spinal stenosis

Use of Intravascular Imaging During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Contemporary Multicenter Registry

Background: Intravascular imaging can facilitate chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results: We examined the frequency of use and outcomes of intravascular imaging among 619 CTO percutaneous coronary interventions performed between 2012 and 2015 at 7 US centers. Mean age was 65.4±10 years and 85% of the patients were men. Intravascular imaging was used in 38%: intravascular ultrasound in 36%, optical coherence tomography in 3%, and both in 1.45%. Intravascular imaging was used for stent sizing (26.3%), stent optimization (38.0%), and CTO crossing (35.7%, antegrade in 27.9%, and retrograde in 7.8%). Intravascular imaging to facilitate crossing was used more frequently in lesions with proximal cap ambiguity (49% versus 26%, P<0.0001) and with retrograde as compared with antegrade‐only cases (67% versus 31%, P<0.0001). Despite higher complexity (Japanese CTO score: 2.86±1.19 versus 2.43±1.19, P=0.001), cases in which imaging was used for crossing had similar technical and procedural success (92.8% versus 89.6%, P=0.302 and 90.1% versus 88.3%, P=0.588, respectively) and similar incidence of major cardiac adverse events (2.7% versus 3.2%, P=0.772). Use of intravascular imaging was associated with longer procedure (192 minutes [interquartile range 130, 255] versus 131 minutes [90, 192], P<0.0001) and fluoroscopy (71 minutes [44, 93] versus 39 minutes [25, 69], P<0.0001) time. Conclusions: Intravascular imaging is frequently performed during CTO percutaneous coronary intervention both for crossing and for stent selection/optimization. Despite its use in more complex lesion subsets, intravascular imaging was associated with similar rates of technical and procedural success for CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02061436

Point-of-care testing in paediatric settings in the UK and Ireland: A cross-sectional study

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) is diagnostic testing performed at or near to the site of the patient. Understanding the current capacity, and scope, of POCT in this setting is essential in order to respond to new research evidence which may lead to wide implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey study of POCT use was conducted between 6th January and 2nd February 2020 on behalf of two United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland-based paediatric research networks (Paediatric Emergency Research UK and Ireland, and General and Adolescent Paediatric Research UK and Ireland). Results: In total 91/109 (83.5%) sites responded, with some respondents providing details for multiple units on their site based on network membership (139 units in total). The most commonly performed POCT were blood sugar (137/139; 98.6%), urinalysis (134/139; 96.4%) and blood gas analysis (132/139; 95%). The use of POCT for Influenza/Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (45/139; 32.4%, 41/139; 29.5%), C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (13/139; 9.4%), Procalcitonin (PCT) (2/139; 1.4%) and Group A Streptococcus (5/139; 3.6%) and was relatively low. Obstacles to the introduction of new POCT included resources and infrastructure to support test performance and quality assurance. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates significant consensus in POCT practice in the UK and Ireland but highlights specific inequity in newer biomarkers, some which do not have support from national guidance. A clear strategy to overcome the key obstacles of funding, evidence base, and standardising variation will be essential if there is a drive toward increasing implementation of POCT

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Comment on “The Effects of Bariatric Surgery Weight Loss on Knee Pain in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee”

Copyright © 2013 Janice Lin et al.This is an open access article distributed under theCreativeCommonsAttribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. It was with great interest that we read “The Effects of Bariatric Surgery Weight Loss on Knee Pain in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee ” by Edwards et al. [1]. As other studies have shown, obesity is an incrementally modifiable risk factor for the development and progression of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) [2, 3]. Any opportunity to treat obesity and potentially limit KOA progression and disability will be an important public health strategy. Bariatric surgery is superior to regimented dietary and exercise programs in helping obese patients achieve andmaintainweight loss [4, 5], and thus we think the authors focused on an important potential option to help obese patients avoid total joint replacement surgery. We found it valuable that the authors conducted a joint-driven and hypothesis-driven study to track pain and functional improvement in patients who underwent the three types of bariatric surgery: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We agree with the authors that the existing literature is limited in examining the effect of bariatric surgery onKOA, particularly with confirmation of patients ’ radiographic KOA and the utilization of validated tools such as Western Ontario an