Search

Background: Conduction abnormality post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains clinically significant and usually requires chronic pacing. The effect of right ventricular (RV) pacing post-TAVI on clinical outcomes warrants further studies. Methods: We identified 147 consecutive patients who required chronic RV pacing after a successful TAVI procedure and propensity-matched these patients according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score to a control group of patients that did not require RV pacing post-TAVI. We evaluated routine echocardiographic measurements and performed offline speckle-tracking strain analysis for the purpose of this study on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) images performed at 9 to 18 months post-TAVI. Results: The final study population comprised 294 patients (pacing group n = 147 and non-pacing group n = 147), with a mean age of 81 ± 7 years, 59% male; median follow-up was 354 days. There were more baseline conduction abnormalities in the pacing group compared to the non-pacing group (56.5% vs. 41.5%. p = 0.01). Eighty-eight patients (61.6%) in the pacing group required RV pacing due to atrioventricular (AV) conduction block post-TAVI. The mean RV pacing burden was 44% in the pacing group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar at follow-up in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups (57 ± 13.0%, 59 ± 11% p = 0.31); however, LV global longitudinal strain (−12.7 ± 3.5% vs. −18.8 ± 2.7%, p < 0.0001), LV apical strain (−12.9 ± 5.5% vs. 23.2 ± 9.2%, p < 0.0001), and mid-LV strain (−12.7 ± 4.6% vs. −18.7 ± 3.4%, p < 0.0001) were significantly worse in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups. Conclusions: Chronic RV pacing after the TAVI procedure is associated with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction within 1.5 years of follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. Background: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16‐month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. Results: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0–3.2]; p = 0.338). Conclusions: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice. Plain Language Summary: At our headache center, we reviewed 366 patient charts for those receiving onabotulinumtoxinA, nerve blocks with local anesthetic, or both in the same visit for chronic migraine. Our goal was to compare the safety of performing both procedures at once versus each individual procedure. We found that the combination treatment with both injections of onabotulinumtoxinA and nerve blocks with local anesthetic for chronic migraine in the same appointment is well tolerated by patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical training is stressful and has well-established implications for student wellbeing. Despite widespread efforts to reduce student burnout through wellness programming in medical schools, there is a paucity of literature examining students' perception of wellness and engagement with these programs. As such, we sought to evaluate: 1) medical students' level of engagement with a multifaceted wellness curriculum, 2) factors students perceived as important to wellbeing, and 3) associations with longitudinal measures of wellbeing and perceived stress. Intervention: A multipronged wellness curriculum was instituted at Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine-AZ (MCASOM-AZ) in 2017. This includes mental health services, curriculum-embedded seminars, wellness committee (composed of students, faculty, and administration) driven programming, and student proposed wellness activities that are reviewed and funded by the committee. The authors invited students at our institution to complete questionnaires at three timepoints during the 2018–2019 academic year. Questionnaires asked participants to rank eight factors from least to most important to their overall wellbeing. Participants self-reported their participation in each prong of the wellness curriculum and ranked the impact of each on their overall wellbeing. Their wellbeing and perceived stress were measured at each timepoint using validated psychological instruments. Context: As MCASOM-AZ opened in 2017, the student body at the time of study consisted of first- and second-year medical students. All students had the opportunity to engage with all aspects of the wellness curriculum and participate in this study, however participation was elective and all responses were anonymous. Of the MCASOM-AZ student body comprised of 100 students, 58 consented to participate in the study, 41.4% of which were Year 1 and 58.6% of which were Year 2 students. Participant age and gender were collected and were representative of the larger student body. Impact: Students engaged most with student-initiated wellness. They perceived unscheduled time as most impactful to their overall wellbeing with student-initiated activities as second-most impactful. Students with higher perceived stress were more likely than others to use mental health resources, which otherwise ranked lower in importance. Ranking academic performance as important to wellbeing was associated with higher wellbeing. There was no difference in wellbeing between students who participated in the wellness curriculum and those who did not. However, overall student wellbeing increased over the course of the year while perceived stress decreased. Lessons Learned: Medical school programs may benefit from allowing students to direct or contribute to the design of their own wellness curriculum. Additionally, medical education should work toward creating a more supportive learning environment with improved flexibility in order to better meet students' individual needs without compromising their education. Despite having low utilization rates overall, mental health resources remain an important aspect of student support services as they are used by students under greater amounts of perceived stress than their peers. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.2004415. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]