Search

Background: The task of writing structured content reviews and guidelines has grown stronger and more complex. We propose to go beyond search tools and toward curation tools by automating time-consuming and repetitive steps of extracting and organizing information., Methods: SciScribe is built as an extension of IBM's Deep Search platform, which provides document processing and search capabilities. This platform was used to ingest and search full-content publications from PubMed Central (PMC) and official, structured records from the ClinicalTrials and OpenPayments databases. Author names and NCT numbers, mentioned within the publications, were used to link publications to these official records as context. Search strategies involve traditional keyword-based search as well as natural language question and answering via large language models (LLMs)., Results: SciScribe is a web-based tool that helps accelerate literature reviews through key features: (1) accumulating a personal collection from publication sources, such as PMC or other sources; (2) incorporating contextual information from external databases into the presented papers, promoting a more informed assessment by readers; (3) semantic questioning and answering of documents to quickly assess relevance and hierarchical organization; and (4) semantic question answering for each document within a collection, collated into tables., Conclusions: Emergent language processing techniques are opening new avenues to accelerate and enhance the literature review process, for which we have demonstrated a use case implementation in cardiac surgery. SciScribe automates and accelerates this process, mitigates errors associated with repetition and fatigue, and contextualizes results by linking relevant external data sources instantaneously., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients are increasingly using the internet to obtain health care information. US News and World Report Best Hospital rankings received more than 103 million views in 2021. Considering 21% of thoracic surgery patients are minorities, 27.9% are in the bottom quartile of household income, and 70% have Medicare/Medicaid or no insurance, online patient educational materials (PEMs) should be accessible and written at a level easily understood by majority of patients. We performed a comprehensive analysis of readability of websites containing patient-centered resources across all adult thoracic surgery areas., Methods: Online PEMs on thoracic surgical procedures were collected from top 50 hospitals for pulmonology and lung surgery ranked by US News and World Report Best Hospital as of December 1, 2021. Text pertaining to thoracic surgical procedures was collected and divided into 4 procedural genres: esophageal, lung, transplant procedures, and other. Texts were analyzed using OleanderSoftware's Readability Suite through the Raygor readability test., Results: Three hundred seventy-two articles met criteria for analysis. Websites were difficult to read; mean (standard deviation) readability score for all content required a 13.9 (3.6) grade level for comprehension. The mean (standard deviation) readability for esophageal, lung, lung transplant, and other surgeries were 14.5 (3.6), 13.1 (3.6), 11.5 (3.9), and 13.4 (3.7), respectively., Conclusions: Online PEMs required at least a college reading level to comprehend, well exceeding the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. As digital health becomes increasingly relevant, improving the readability of online PEMs in adult cardiac surgery will facilitate equitable access to high-quality care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Increasing use of bioprostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in younger patients, together with wider use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, necessitates understanding risks associated with surgical valve reintervention. Therefore, we sought to identify risks of reoperative SAVR compared with those of primary isolated SAVR., Methods: From January 1980 to July 2017, 7037 patients underwent nonemergency isolated SAVR, with 753 reoperations and 6284 primary isolated operations. These 2 groups were propensity score-matched on 46 preoperative variables, yielding 581 patient pairs for comparing outcomes., Results: Among propensity score-matched patients, aortic clamp time (median 63 vs 52 minutes; P < .0001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (median 88 vs 67 minutes; P < .0001), and postoperative stay (median 7.1 vs 6.9 days; P = .003) were longer for reoperative SAVR than primary isolated SAVR. Hospital mortality after reoperative SAVR decreased from 3.4% in 1985 to 1.3% in 2011, similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Occurrence of stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and new renal dialysis was similar. Blood transfusion (67% vs 36%; P < .0001) and reoperations for bleeding/tamponade (6.4% vs 3.1%; P = .009) were more common after reoperative SAVR. Survival at 1, 5, 10, and 20 years was 94%, 82%, 64%, and 33% after reoperative SAVR and 95%, 86%, 72%, and 46% after elective primary isolated SAVR., Conclusions: Risk of mortality and morbidity after reoperative SAVR has declined and is now similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Decisions regarding prosthesis choice and SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement should be made in the context of lifelong disease management rather than avoidance of reoperation., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Guidelines suggest aortic valve replacement (AVR) for low-risk asymptomatic patients. Indications for transcatheter AVR now include low-risk patients, making it imperative to understand state-of-the-art surgical AVR (SAVR) in this population. Therefore, we compared SAVR outcomes in low-risk patients with those expected from Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models and assessed their intermediate-term survival., Methods: From January 2005 to January 2017, 3493 isolated SAVRs were performed in 3474 patients with STS predicted risk of mortality <4%. Observed operative mortality and composite major morbidity or mortality were compared with STS-expected outcomes according to calendar year of surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for these outcomes. Patients were followed for time-related mortality., Results: With 15 observed operative deaths (0.43%) compared with 55 expected (1.6%), the observed:expected ratio was 0.27 for mortality (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.42), stroke 0.65 (95% CI, 0.41-0.89), and reoperation 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.60). Major morbidity or mortality steadily declined, with probabilities of 8.6%, 6.7%, and 5.2% in 2006, 2011, and 2016, respectively, while STS-expected risk remained at approximately 12%. Mitral valve regurgitation, ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic failure, coronary artery disease, and earlier surgery date were residual risk factors. Survival was 98%, 91%, and 82% at 1, 5, and 9 years, respectively, superior to that predicted for the US age-race-sex-matched population., Conclusions: STS risk models overestimate contemporary SAVR risk at a high-volume center, supporting efforts to create a more agile quality assessment program. SAVR in low-risk patients provides durable survival benefit, supporting early surgery and providing a benchmark for transcatheter AVR., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)