Exercise Echocardiography in Asymptomatic HCM Exercise Capacity, and Not LV Outflow Tract Gradient Predicts Long-Term Outcomes

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess long-term outcomes in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who underwent exercise echocardiography, without invasive therapies for relief of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction.BackgroundMany HCM patients present with LVOT obstruction, mitral regurgitation (MR), and diastolic dysfunction, often requiring invasive therapies for symptomatic relief. However, a significant proportion of truly asymptomatic patients can be closely monitored. In HCM patients, exercise echocardiography has been shown to be a useful assessment of functional capacity and risk stratification.MethodsWe included 426 HCM patients (44 ± 14 years; 78% men) undergoing exercise echocardiography, excluding hypertensive heart disease of elderly, ejection fraction <50% and invasive therapy (myectomy or alcohol ablation) during follow-up. Clinical, echocardiographic (LV thickness, LVOT gradient, and MR) and exercise variables (percent of age-sex predicted metabolic equivalents [METs] and heart rate recovery [HRR] at 1 min post-exercise) were recorded. A composite endpoint of death, appropriate internal defibrillator discharge, and admission for congestive heart failure was recorded.ResultsPatients were asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic on history, but 82% of patients achieved <100% of age-sex predicted METs, and 43% had ≥II+ post-stress MR. The mean LV septal thickness, post-exercise LVOT gradient, and HRR were 2.0 ± 0.5 cm, 62 ± 47 mm Hg, and 31 ± 14 beats/min, respectively. During a mean follow-up of 8.7 ± 3 years, there were 52 events (12%). Patients achieving >100% of age-sex predicted METs had 1% event rate versus 12% in those achieving <85%. On stepwise multivariate survival analysis, percent of age-sex predicted METs (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64 to 0.90), abnormal HRR (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.97), and atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.30 to 5.74) (overall, p < 0.001) independently predicted outcomes.ConclusionsIn asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCM patients, exercise stress testing provides excellent risk stratification, with a low event rate in patients achieving >100% of predicted METs

Improvement in diastolic suction in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy after septal ablation

Background: The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review. Methods: The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board. Results: Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1). Conclusions: ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies

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