Search

Background: Heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback is often performed with structured education, laboratory-based assessments, and practice sessions. It has been shown to improve psychological and physiological function across populations. However, a means to remotely use and monitor this approach would allow for wider use of this technique. Advancements in wearable and digital technology present an opportunity for the widespread application of this approach., Objective: The primary aim of the study was to determine the feasibility of fully remote, self-administered short sessions of HRV-directed biofeedback in a diverse population of health care workers (HCWs). The secondary aim was to determine whether a fully remote, HRV-directed biofeedback intervention significantly alters longitudinal HRV over the intervention period, as monitored by wearable devices. The tertiary aim was to estimate the impact of this intervention on metrics of psychological well-being., Methods: To determine whether remotely implemented short sessions of HRV biofeedback can improve autonomic metrics and psychological well-being, we enrolled HCWs across 7 hospitals in New York City in the United States. They downloaded our study app, watched brief educational videos about HRV biofeedback, and used a well-studied HRV biofeedback program remotely through their smartphone. HRV biofeedback sessions were used for 5 minutes per day for 5 weeks. HCWs were then followed for 12 weeks after the intervention period. Psychological measures were obtained over the study period, and they wore an Apple Watch for at least 7 weeks to monitor the circadian features of HRV., Results: In total, 127 HCWs were enrolled in the study. Overall, only 21 (16.5%) were at least 50% compliant with the HRV biofeedback intervention, representing a small portion of the total sample. This demonstrates that this study design does not feasibly result in adequate rates of compliance with the intervention. Numerical improvement in psychological metrics was observed over the 17-week study period, although it did not reach statistical significance (all P>.05). Using a mixed effect cosinor model, the mean midline-estimating statistic of rhythm (MESOR) of the circadian pattern of the SD of the interbeat interval of normal sinus beats (SDNN), an HRV metric, was observed to increase over the first 4 weeks of the biofeedback intervention in HCWs who were at least 50% compliant., Conclusions: In conclusion, we found that using brief remote HRV biofeedback sessions and monitoring its physiological effect using wearable devices, in the manner that the study was conducted, was not feasible. This is considering the low compliance rates with the study intervention. We found that remote short sessions of HRV biofeedback demonstrate potential promise in improving autonomic nervous function and warrant further study. Wearable devices can monitor the physiological effects of psychological interventions., (©Robert P Hirten, Matteo Danieletto, Kyle Landell, Micol Zweig, Eddye Golden, Renata Pyzik, Sparshdeep Kaur, Helena Chang, Drew Helmus, Bruce E Sands, Dennis Charney, Girish Nadkarni, Emilia Bagiella, Laurie Keefer, Zahi A Fayad. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 25.04.2024.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a high degree of psychological distress among health care workers (HCWs). There is a need to characterize which HCWs are at an increased risk of developing psychological effects from the pandemic. Given the differences in the response of individuals to stress, an analysis of both the perceived and physiological consequences of stressors can provide a comprehensive evaluation of its impact., Objective: This study aimed to determine characteristics associated with longitudinal perceived stress in HCWs and to assess whether changes in heart rate variability (HRV), a marker of autonomic nervous system function, are associated with features protective against longitudinal stress., Methods: HCWs across 7 hospitals in New York City, NY, were prospectively followed in an ongoing observational digital study using the custom Warrior Watch Study app. Participants wore an Apple Watch for the duration of the study to measure HRV throughout the follow-up period. Surveys measuring perceived stress, resilience, emotional support, quality of life, and optimism were collected at baseline and longitudinally., Results: A total of 361 participants (mean age 36.8, SD 10.1 years; female: n=246, 69.3%) were enrolled. Multivariate analysis found New York City's COVID-19 case count to be associated with increased longitudinal stress (P=.008). Baseline emotional support, quality of life, and resilience were associated with decreased longitudinal stress (P<.001). A significant reduction in stress during the 4-week period after COVID-19 diagnosis was observed in the highest tertial of emotional support (P=.03) and resilience (P=.006). Participants in the highest tertial of baseline emotional support and resilience had a significantly different circadian pattern of longitudinally collected HRV compared to subjects in the low or medium tertial., Conclusions: High resilience, emotional support, and quality of life place HCWs at reduced risk of longitudinal perceived stress and have a distinct physiological stress profile. Our findings support the use of these characteristics to identify HCWs at risk of the psychological and physiological stress effects of the pandemic., (©Robert P Hirten, Matteo Danieletto, Lewis Tomalin, Katie Hyewon Choi, Micol Zweig, Eddye Golden, Sparshdeep Kaur, Drew Helmus, Anthony Biello, Renata Pyzik, Claudia Calcagno, Robert Freeman, Bruce E Sands, Dennis Charney, Erwin P Bottinger, James W Murrough, Laurie Keefer, Mayte Suarez-Farinas, Girish N Nadkarni, Zahi A Fayad. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 13.09.2021.)

Background: Chest radiography (CXR) often is performed in the acute setting to help understand the extent of respiratory disease in patients with COVID-19, but a clearly defined role for negative chest radiograph results in assessing patients has not been described., Research Question: Is portable CXR an effective exclusionary test for future adverse clinical outcomes in patients suspected of having COVID-19?, Study Design and Methods: Charts of consecutive patients suspected of having COVID-19 at five EDs in New York City between March 19, 2020, and April 23, 2020, were reviewed. Patients were categorized based on absence of findings on initial CXR. The primary outcomes were hospital admission, mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and mortality., Results: Three thousand two hundred forty-five adult patients, 474 (14.6%) with negative initial CXR results, were reviewed. Among all patients, negative initial CXR results were associated with a low probability of future adverse clinical outcomes, with negative likelihood ratios of 0.27 (95% CI, 0.23-0.31) for hospital admission, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.37) for mechanical ventilation, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.09-0.40) for ARDS, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.51) for mortality. Among the subset of 955 patients younger than 65 years and with a duration of symptoms of at least 5 days, no patients with negative CXR results died, and the negative likelihood ratios were 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12-0.25) for hospital admission, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.02-0.36) for mechanical ventilation, and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64) for ARDS., Interpretation: Initial CXR in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19 is a strong exclusionary test for hospital admission, mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and mortality. The value of CXR as an exclusionary test for adverse clinical outcomes is highest among young adults, patients with few comorbidities, and those with a prolonged duration of symptoms., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the associated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a public health emergency. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 although mechanisms underlying AKI are yet unclear. There may be a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the kidney; however, there is currently no data linking SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) to AKI. We explored the association of SARS-CoV-2 VL at admission to AKI in a large diverse cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Methods and Findings: We included patients hospitalized between March 13th and May 19th, 2020 with SARS-CoV-2 in a large academic healthcare system in New York City (N = 1,049) with available VL at admission quantified by real-time RT-PCR. We extracted clinical and outcome data from our institutional electronic health records (EHRs). AKI was defined by KDIGO guidelines. We fit a Fine-Gray competing risks model (with death as a competing risk) using demographics, comorbidities, admission severity scores, and log10 transformed VL as covariates and generated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). VL was associated with an increased risk of AKI (aHR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08, p = 0.02) with a 4% increased hazard for each log10 VL change. Patients with a viral load in the top 50th percentile had an increased adjusted hazard of 1.27 (95% CI: 1.02-1.58, p = 0.03) for AKI as compared to those in the bottom 50th percentile., Conclusions: VL is weakly but significantly associated with in-hospital AKI after adjusting for confounders. This may indicate the role of VL in COVID-19 associated AKI. This data may inform future studies to discover the mechanistic basis of COVID-19 associated AKI., Competing Interests: GNN is a scientific co-founder in Renalytix AI and owns equity, is on the scientific advisory board and receives consulting fees. GNN is also a scientific co-founder in Pensieve health, owns equity and is on the scientific advisory board. GNN has also received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Reata, BioVie, Variant Bio and GLG consulting and has received operational funding from Goldfinch Bio. There is no specific competing interest related to this work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Early reports indicate that AKI is common among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated with worse outcomes. However, AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described., Methods: This retrospective, observational study involved a review of data from electronic health records of patients aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System from February 27 to May 30, 2020. We describe the frequency of AKI and dialysis requirement, AKI recovery, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with mortality., Results: Of 3993 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, AKI occurred in 1835 (46%) patients; 347 (19%) of the patients with AKI required dialysis. The proportions with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. A total of 976 (24%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 745 (76%) experienced AKI. Of the 435 patients with AKI and urine studies, 84% had proteinuria, 81% had hematuria, and 60% had leukocyturia. Independent predictors of severe AKI were CKD, men, and higher serum potassium at admission. In-hospital mortality was 50% among patients with AKI versus 8% among those without AKI (aOR, 9.2; 95% confidence interval, 7.5 to 11.3). Of survivors with AKI who were discharged, 35% had not recovered to baseline kidney function by the time of discharge. An additional 28 of 77 (36%) patients who had not recovered kidney function at discharge did so on posthospital follow-up., Conclusions: AKI is common among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality. Of all patients with AKI, only 30% survived with recovery of kidney function by the time of discharge., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Background: There are limited data regarding the clinical impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH). In this study, we compared outcomes for PLWH with COVID-19 to a matched comparison group., Methods: We identified 88 PLWH hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in our hospital system in New York City between 12 March and 23 April 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical characteristics, laboratory values, HIV status, treatment, and outcomes from this group and matched comparators (1 PLWH to up to 5 patients by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and calendar week of infection). We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes (death, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge) for these groups, as well as cumulative incidence of death by HIV status., Results: Patients did not differ significantly by HIV status by age, sex, or race/ethnicity due to the matching algorithm. PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19 had high proportions of HIV virologic control on antiretroviral therapy. PLWH had greater proportions of smoking (P < .001) and comorbid illness than uninfected comparators. There was no difference in COVID-19 severity on admission by HIV status (P = .15). Poor outcomes for hospitalized PLWH were frequent but similar to proportions in comparators; 18% required mechanical ventilation and 21% died during follow-up (compared with 23% and 20%, respectively). There was similar cumulative incidence of death over time by HIV status (P = .94)., Conclusions: We found no differences in adverse outcomes associated with HIV infection for hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared with a demographically similar patient group., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health crisis, with over 33 million cases and 999 000 deaths worldwide. Data are needed regarding the clinical course of hospitalised patients, particularly in the USA. We aimed to compare clinical characteristic of patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital mortality with those who were discharged alive., Design: Demographic, clinical and outcomes data for patients admitted to five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 between 27 February and 2 April 2020 were identified through institutional electronic health records. We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of patients who had in-hospital mortality or were discharged alive., Setting: All patients were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System, a large quaternary care urban hospital system., Participants: Participants over the age of 18 years were included., Primary Outcomes: We investigated in-hospital mortality during the study period., Results: A total of 2199 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period. As of 2 April, 1121 (51%) patients remained hospitalised, and 1078 (49%) completed their hospital course. Of the latter, the overall mortality was 29%, and 36% required intensive care. The median age was 65 years overall and 75 years in those who died. Pre-existing conditions were present in 65% of those who died and 46% of those discharged. In those who died, the admission median lymphocyte percentage was 11.7%, D-dimer was 2.4 μg/mL, C reactive protein was 162 mg/L and procalcitonin was 0.44 ng/mL. In those discharged, the admission median lymphocyte percentage was 16.6%, D-dimer was 0.93 μg/mL, C reactive protein was 79 mg/L and procalcitonin was 0.09 ng/mL., Conclusions: In our cohort of hospitalised patients, requirement of intensive care and mortality were high. Patients who died typically had more pre-existing conditions and greater perturbations in inflammatory markers as compared with those who were discharged., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GNN reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Renalytix AI, non-financial support from Pensieve Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioVie, GLG Consulting, from outside the submitted work. AL reports personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. ZAF reports grants from Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Siemens Healthineers, personal fees from Alexion, GlaxoSmithKline, Trained Therapeutix Discovery, outside the submitted work. In addition, ZAF has patents licensed to Trained Therapeutix Discovery. The other authors have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: COVID-19 has infected millions of people worldwide and is responsible for several hundred thousand fatalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated thoughtful resource allocation and early identification of high-risk patients. However, effective methods to meet these needs are lacking., Objective: The aims of this study were to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City; to develop machine learning models for making predictions about the hospital course of the patients over clinically meaningful time horizons based on patient characteristics at admission; and to assess the performance of these models at multiple hospitals and time points., Methods: We used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and baseline comparator models to predict in-hospital mortality and critical events at time windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 days from admission. Our study population included harmonized EHR data from five hospitals in New York City for 4098 COVID-19-positive patients admitted from March 15 to May 22, 2020. The models were first trained on patients from a single hospital (n=1514) before or on May 1, externally validated on patients from four other hospitals (n=2201) before or on May 1, and prospectively validated on all patients after May 1 (n=383). Finally, we established model interpretability to identify and rank variables that drive model predictions., Results: Upon cross-validation, the XGBoost classifier outperformed baseline models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for mortality of 0.89 at 3 days, 0.85 at 5 and 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days. XGBoost also performed well for critical event prediction, with an AUC-ROC of 0.80 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. In external validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.88 at 3 days, 0.86 at 5 days, 0.86 at 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days for mortality prediction. Similarly, the unimputed XGBoost model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. Trends in performance on prospective validation sets were similar. At 7 days, acute kidney injury on admission, elevated LDH, tachypnea, and hyperglycemia were the strongest drivers of critical event prediction, while higher age, anion gap, and C-reactive protein were the strongest drivers of mortality prediction., Conclusions: We externally and prospectively trained and validated machine learning models for mortality and critical events for patients with COVID-19 at different time horizons. These models identified at-risk patients and uncovered underlying relationships that predicted outcomes., (©Akhil Vaid, Sulaiman Somani, Adam J Russak, Jessica K De Freitas, Fayzan F Chaudhry, Ishan Paranjpe, Kipp W Johnson, Samuel J Lee, Riccardo Miotto, Felix Richter, Shan Zhao, Noam D Beckmann, Nidhi Naik, Arash Kia, Prem Timsina, Anuradha Lala, Manish Paranjpe, Eddye Golden, Matteo Danieletto, Manbir Singh, Dara Meyer, Paul F O'Reilly, Laura Huckins, Patricia Kovatch, Joseph Finkelstein, Robert M. Freeman, Edgar Argulian, Andrew Kasarskis, Bethany Percha, Judith A Aberg, Emilia Bagiella, Carol R Horowitz, Barbara Murphy, Eric J Nestler, Eric E Schadt, Judy H Cho, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, Valentin Fuster, Dennis S Charney, David L Reich, Erwin P Bottinger, Matthew A Levin, Jagat Narula, Zahi A Fayad, Allan C Just, Alexander W Charney, Girish N Nadkarni, Benjamin S Glicksberg. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.11.2020.)

Background: Thromboembolic disease is common in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). There is limited evidence on the association of in-hospital anticoagulation (AC) with outcomes and postmortem findings., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine association of AC with in-hospital outcomes and describe thromboembolic findings on autopsies., Methods: This retrospective analysis examined the association of AC with mortality, intubation, and major bleeding. Subanalyses were also conducted on the association of therapeutic versus prophylactic AC initiated ≤48 h from admission. Thromboembolic disease was contextualized by premortem AC among consecutive autopsies., Results: Among 4,389 patients, median age was 65 years with 44% women. Compared with no AC (n = 1,530; 34.9%), therapeutic AC (n = 900; 20.5%) and prophylactic AC (n = 1,959; 44.6%) were associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 0.62 and aHR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.57, respectively), and intubation (aHR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.94 and aHR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.89, respectively). When initiated ≤48 h from admission, there was no statistically significant difference between therapeutic (n = 766) versus prophylactic AC (n = 1,860) (aHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.02; p = 0.08). Overall, 89 patients (2%) had major bleeding adjudicated by clinician review, with 27 of 900 (3.0%) on therapeutic, 33 of 1,959 (1.7%) on prophylactic, and 29 of 1,530 (1.9%) on no AC. Of 26 autopsies, 11 (42%) had thromboembolic disease not clinically suspected and 3 of 11 (27%) were on therapeutic AC., Conclusions: AC was associated with lower mortality and intubation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Compared with prophylactic AC, therapeutic AC was associated with lower mortality, although not statistically significant. Autopsies revealed frequent thromboembolic disease. These data may inform trials to determine optimal AC regimens., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data on patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who return to hospital after discharge are scarce. Characterization of these patients may inform post-hospitalization care., Objective: To describe clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who returned to the emergency department (ED) or required readmission within 14 days of discharge., Design: Retrospective cohort study of SARS-COV-2-positive patients with index hospitalization between February 27 and April 12, 2020, with ≥ 14-day follow-up. Significance was defined as P < 0.05 after multiplying P by 125 study-wide comparisons., Participants: Hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 discharged alive from five New York City hospitals., Main Measures: Readmission or return to ED following discharge., Results: Of 2864 discharged patients, 103 (3.6%) returned for emergency care after a median of 4.5 days, with 56 requiring inpatient readmission. The most common reason for return was respiratory distress (50%). Compared with patients who did not return, there were higher proportions of COPD (6.8% vs 2.9%) and hypertension (36% vs 22.1%) among those who returned. Patients who returned also had a shorter median length of stay (LOS) during index hospitalization (4.5 [2.9,9.1] vs 6.7 [3.5, 11.5] days; P adjusted = 0.006), and were less likely to have required intensive care on index hospitalization (5.8% vs 19%; P adjusted = 0.001). A trend towards association between absence of in-hospital treatment-dose anticoagulation on index admission and return to hospital was also observed (20.9% vs 30.9%, P adjusted = 0.06). On readmission, rates of intensive care and death were 5.8% and 3.6%, respectively., Conclusions: Return to hospital after admission for COVID-19 was infrequent within 14 days of discharge. The most common cause for return was respiratory distress. Patients who returned more likely had COPD and hypertension, shorter LOS on index-hospitalization, and lower rates of in-hospital treatment-dose anticoagulation. Future studies should focus on whether these comorbid conditions, longer LOS, and anticoagulation are associated with reduced readmissions.

Background: The degree of myocardial injury, as reflected by troponin elevation, and associated outcomes among U.S. hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) are unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the degree of myocardial injury and associated outcomes in a large hospitalized cohort with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19., Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to 1 of 5 Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York City between February 27, 2020, and April 12, 2020, with troponin-I (normal value <0.03 ng/ml) measured within 24 h of admission were included (n = 2,736). Demographics, medical histories, admission laboratory results, and outcomes were captured from the hospitals' electronic health records., Results: The median age was 66.4 years, with 59.6% men. Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure, was more prevalent in patients with higher troponin concentrations, as were hypertension and diabetes. A total of 506 (18.5%) patients died during hospitalization. In all, 985 (36%) patients had elevated troponin concentrations. After adjusting for disease severity and relevant clinical factors, even small amounts of myocardial injury (e.g., troponin I >0.03 to 0.09 ng/ml; n = 455; 16.6%) were significantly associated with death (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.37 to 2.24; p < 0.001) while greater amounts (e.g., troponin I >0.09 ng/dl; n = 530; 19.4%) were significantly associated with higher risk (adjusted HR: 3.03; 95% CI: 2.42 to 3.80; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Myocardial injury is prevalent among patients hospitalized with COVID-19; however, troponin concentrations were generally present at low levels. Patients with CVD are more likely to have myocardial injury than patients without CVD. Troponin elevation among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of mortality., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Preschool-based interventions offer promise to instill healthy behaviors in children, which can be a strategy to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease later. However, their efficacy in underserved communities is not well established., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a preschool-based health promotion educational intervention in an underserved community., Methods: This cluster-randomized controlled study involved 15 Head Start preschools in Harlem, New York. Schools and their children were randomized 3:2 to receive either a 4-month (50 h) educational intervention to instill healthy behaviors in relation to diet, physical activity, body/heart awareness, and emotion management; or their standard curriculum (control). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the overall knowledge, attitudes, and habits (KAH) score of the children at 5 months. As secondary outcomes, we evaluated the changes in KAH subcomponents and emotion comprehension. Linear mixed-effects models were used to test for intervention effects., Results: The authors enrolled 562 preschool children age 3 to 5 years, 51% female, 54% Hispanic/Latino, and 37% African-American. Compared with the control group, the mean relative change from baseline in the overall KAH score was ∼2.2 fold higher in the intervention group (average absolute difference of 2.86 points; 95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 5.14; p = 0.014). The maximal effect was observed in children who received >75% of the curriculum. Physical activity and body/heart awareness components, and knowledge and attitudes domains, were the main drivers of the effect (p values <0.05). Changes in emotion comprehension trended toward favoring intervened children., Conclusions: This multidimensional school-based educational intervention may be an effective strategy for establishing healthy behaviors among preschoolers from a diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged community. Early primordial prevention strategies may contribute to reducing the global burden of cardiovascular disease. (Family-Based Approach in a Minority Community Integrating Systems-Biology for Promotion of Health [FAMILIA]; NCT02343341)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this pilot study, we hypothesize that dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) has the potential to evaluate differences in atherosclerosis profiles in patients subjected to high (initial dust cloud) and low (after 13 September 2001) particulate matter (PM) exposure. Exposure to PM may be associated with adverse health effects leading to increased morbidity. Law enforcement workers were exposed to high levels of particulate pollution after working at "Ground Zero" and may exhibit accelerated atherosclerosis. 31 subjects (28 male) with high (n = 19) or low (n = 12) exposure to PM underwent DCE-MRI. Demographics (age, gender, family history, hypertension, diabetes, BMI, and smoking status), biomarkers (lipid profiles, hs-CRP, BP) and ankle-brachial index (ABI) measures (left and right) were obtained from all subjects. Differences between the high and low exposures were compared using independent samples t test. Using linear forward stepwise regression with information criteria model, independent predictors of increased area under curve (AUC) from DCE-MRI were determined using all variables as input. Confidence interval of 95 % was used and variables with p > 0.1 were eliminated. p < 0.05 was considered significant. Subjects with high exposure (HE) had significantly higher DCE-MRI AUC uptake (increased neovascularization) compared to subjects with lower exposure (LE). (AUC: 2.65 ± 0.63 HE vs. 1.88 ± 0.69 LE, p = 0.016). Except for right leg ABI, none of the other parameters were significantly different between the two groups. Regression model indicated that only HE to PM, CRP > 3.0 and total cholesterol were independently associated with increased neovascularization (in decreasing order of importance, all p < 0.026). HE to PM may increase plaque neovascularization, and thereby potentially indicate worsening atherogenic profile of "Ground Zero" workers.