The Shark Assemblage at French Frigate Shoals Atoll, Hawai‘i: Species Composition, Abundance and Habitat Use

Empirical data on the abundance and habitat preferences of coral reef top predators are needed to evaluate their ecological impacts and guide management decisions. We used longline surveys to quantify the shark assemblage at French Frigate Shoals (FFS) atoll from May to August 2009. Fishing effort consisted of 189 longline sets totaling 6,862 hook hours of soak time. A total of 221 sharks from 7 species were captured, among which Galapagos (Carcharhinus galapagensis, 36.2%), gray reef (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos, 25.8%) and tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier, 20.4%) sharks were numerically dominant. A lack of blacktip reef sharks (Carcharhinus melanopterus) distinguished the FFS shark assemblage from those at many other atolls in the Indo-Pacific. Compared to prior underwater visual survey estimates, longline methods more accurately represented species abundance and composition for the majority of shark species. Sharks were significantly less abundant in the shallow lagoon than adjacent habitats. Recaptures of Galapagos sharks provided the first empirical estimate of population size for any Galapagos shark population. The overall recapture rate was 5.4%. Multiple closed population models were evaluated, with Chao Mh ranking best in model performance and yielding a population estimate of 668 sharks with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 289–1720. Low shark abundance in the shallow lagoon habitats suggests removal of a small number of sharks from the immediate vicinity of lagoonal islets may reduce short-term predation on endangered monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) pups, but considerable fishing effort would be required to catch even a small number of sharks. Additional data on long-term movements and habitat use of sharks at FFS are required to better assess the likely ecological impacts of shark culling

Minithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The safety and effectiveness of mitral valve repair via thoracoscopically-guided minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy) compared with median sternotomy (sternotomy) in patients with degenerative mitral valve regurgitation is uncertain. Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair in a randomized trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial in 10 tertiary care institutions in the UK. Participants were adults with degenerative mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 with concealed allocation to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the index surgery, assessed by an independent researcher masked to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included recurrent mitral regurgitation grade, physical activity, and quality of life. The prespecified safety outcomes included death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year. Results: Between November 2016 and January 2021, 330 participants were randomized (mean age, 67 years, 100 female [30%]); 166 were allocated to minithoracotomy and 164 allocated to sternotomy, of whom 309 underwent surgery and 294 reported the primary outcome. At 12 weeks, the mean between-group difference in the change in the SF-36 physical function T score was 0.68 (95% CI, −1.89 to 3.26). Valve repair rates (≈ 96%) were similar in both groups. Echocardiography demonstrated mitral regurgitation severity as none or mild for 92% of participants at 1 year with no difference between groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 5.4% (9 of 166) of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% (10 of 163) undergoing sternotomy at 1 year. Conclusions and relevance: Minithoracotomy is not superior to sternotomy in recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Minithoracotomy achieves high rates and quality of valve repair and has similar safety outcomes at 1 year to sternotomy. The results provide evidence to inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN1393045

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

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

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Up against the wall - emergency double myocardial rupture repair.

Acknowledgements: I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Unsworth-White for his invaluable guidance and unwavering support throughout this journey. A sincere thank you is also extended to the entire cardiothoracic surgery department at Derriford Hospital, whose warm welcome and willingness to assist significantly contributed to the completion of this report. Special appreciation goes to Miss Yuhing Lok, whose vital advice and continuous support played a crucial role in shaping this report. Additionally, I express my thanks to Mr. Bonning for his skill in creating the illustrations featured in this report. Last but not least, I am deeply grateful to the patient who generously allowed the sharing of their story with the medical community. Their willingness to contribute will undoubtedly benefit the broader field of medicine.BACKGROUND: Left ventricular free wall rupture (LVFWR) and interventricular septal rupture (VSR) are potentially catastrophic mechanical complications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). When they occur together, "double myocardial rupture" (DMR), survival is unlikely. DMR is seen in only 0.3% of all AMIs. With or without surgical intervention, the odds are against the patient. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old male self-referred to the emergency department of a remote hospital 5 days after first experiencing chest pain. Investigations in ED confirmed an inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by DMR. Coronary angiography revealed a mid-course total occlusion of the right coronary artery (RCA). He was rapidly transferred to our regional cardiac surgical unit, arriving straight into the operating theatre, in cardiogenic shock. He was briefly conscious, before arresting prior to intubation and being massaged onto bypass. Not only did he survive the all-night operation, requiring a mitral valve replacement in the process, but he survived multiple postoperative complications to be eventually transferred on postoperative day 66, neurologically intact, to a peripheral unit to complete his rehabilitation. He was subsequently discharged home 88 days after the operation and was able to ambulate with a walking frame into his first postoperative follow-up clinic appointment. CONCLUSIONS: Our patient, against all odds, has survived DMR and multiple postoperative complications. We present the details of his case and the literature surrounding the condition. The patient's mental fortitude and his supportive family played a significant role, along with excellent multidisciplinary team work, in assuring his survival