Ted Bosworth

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

With a median follow-up of 10 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), patients who received a radial artery graft rather than a saphenous vein graft as a second conduit were less likely to experience death, MI, or repeat revascularization, according to pooled data from five randomized trials.

The same result from the same set of data was produced after a median of 5 years, but the longer follow-up provides a more compelling case for the superiority of the radial artery graft, according to the authors of this meta-analysis, led by Mario F.L. Gaudino, MD, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

For the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization, the favorable hazard ratio at 5 years corresponded to a 33% risk reduction (HR, 0.67; P = .01), according to the previously published results (Gaudino M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069-77).

The new data at 10 years show about the same risk reduction for the primary endpoint, but with more robust statistical significance (HR, 0.73; P < .001).

More importantly, because of the greater number of events by 10 years, the advantage of radial artery graft for the secondary composite outcome of death or MI has now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.77; P = .01).

In addition, there was a 27% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93) at 10 years associated with the radial artery graft. But this was not a prespecified endpoint, and so this is a hypothesis-generating post hoc finding.

The data was drawn from five randomized trials with a total of 1,036 patients. When used as an additional conduit to an internal thoracic artery in CABG, radial artery grafts relative to saphenous vein grafts were associated with a lower but nonsignificant risk of adverse outcomes in all five trials.

The advantage of radial artery grafts in the meta-analysis at 5 and now 10 years supports a series of observational studies that have also claimed better results with radial artery grafts.

The analysis was published July 14 in JAMA with essentially the same outcomes reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation in March.

However, a editorial that accompanied this meta-analysis in JAMA raised fundamental questions about revascularization.

“Intuitively, high-severity coronary lesions with significant ischemic burden, poor collateralization, and significant myocardium at risk may benefit from a durable revascularization option,” observed the editorial coauthors, Steven E. Nissen, MD, and Faisal G. Bakaeen, MD, both of the Cleveland Clinic. However, they cautioned that there is no definitive evidence that “any revascularization procedure reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with anatomically and physiologically stable coronary artery disease.”

They called the 10-year outcomes from the meta-analysis “the best available long-term data on the potential value of using the radial artery as a bypass conduit,” but warned that no randomized trial has confirmed that two or more conduits are superior to a single internal thoracic artery in CABG to for preventing death and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Such a trial, called ROMA, is now underway (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:1031-40), but results are not expected until 2025.

In the meantime, placement of second conduits remains common in CABG procedures, about 400,000 of which are performed each year in the United States. According to Dr. Gaudino, there are indications and contraindications for second conduits, but radial artery should be the preferred standard when these are considered.

“Our data indicate that the radial artery graft should be used to complement the left internal thoracic artery in all patients who meet the indications for radial artery grafts,” he explained in an interview.

“Unfortunately, at the moment radial artery grafts are used in less than 10% of CABG cases in the U.S.,” he reported. “Hopefully, our data will lead to a larger use of this conduit by the surgical community.”

Dr. Gaudino, the principal investigator, reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Gaudino MFL et al. JAMA. 2020;324:179-87.

With a median follow-up of 10 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), patients who received a radial artery graft rather than a saphenous vein graft as a second conduit were less likely to experience death, MI, or repeat revascularization, according to pooled data from five randomized trials.

The same result from the same set of data was produced after a median of 5 years, but the longer follow-up provides a more compelling case for the superiority of the radial artery graft, according to the authors of this meta-analysis, led by Mario F.L. Gaudino, MD, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

For the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization, the favorable hazard ratio at 5 years corresponded to a 33% risk reduction (HR, 0.67; P = .01), according to the previously published results (Gaudino M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069-77).

The new data at 10 years show about the same risk reduction for the primary endpoint, but with more robust statistical significance (HR, 0.73; P < .001).

More importantly, because of the greater number of events by 10 years, the advantage of radial artery graft for the secondary composite outcome of death or MI has now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.77; P = .01).

In addition, there was a 27% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93) at 10 years associated with the radial artery graft. But this was not a prespecified endpoint, and so this is a hypothesis-generating post hoc finding.

The data was drawn from five randomized trials with a total of 1,036 patients. When used as an additional conduit to an internal thoracic artery in CABG, radial artery grafts relative to saphenous vein grafts were associated with a lower but nonsignificant risk of adverse outcomes in all five trials.

The advantage of radial artery grafts in the meta-analysis at 5 and now 10 years supports a series of observational studies that have also claimed better results with radial artery grafts.

The analysis was published July 14 in JAMA with essentially the same outcomes reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation in March.

However, a editorial that accompanied this meta-analysis in JAMA raised fundamental questions about revascularization.

“Intuitively, high-severity coronary lesions with significant ischemic burden, poor collateralization, and significant myocardium at risk may benefit from a durable revascularization option,” observed the editorial coauthors, Steven E. Nissen, MD, and Faisal G. Bakaeen, MD, both of the Cleveland Clinic. However, they cautioned that there is no definitive evidence that “any revascularization procedure reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with anatomically and physiologically stable coronary artery disease.”

They called the 10-year outcomes from the meta-analysis “the best available long-term data on the potential value of using the radial artery as a bypass conduit,” but warned that no randomized trial has confirmed that two or more conduits are superior to a single internal thoracic artery in CABG to for preventing death and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Such a trial, called ROMA, is now underway (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:1031-40), but results are not expected until 2025.

In the meantime, placement of second conduits remains common in CABG procedures, about 400,000 of which are performed each year in the United States. According to Dr. Gaudino, there are indications and contraindications for second conduits, but radial artery should be the preferred standard when these are considered.

“Our data indicate that the radial artery graft should be used to complement the left internal thoracic artery in all patients who meet the indications for radial artery grafts,” he explained in an interview.

“Unfortunately, at the moment radial artery grafts are used in less than 10% of CABG cases in the U.S.,” he reported. “Hopefully, our data will lead to a larger use of this conduit by the surgical community.”

Dr. Gaudino, the principal investigator, reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Gaudino MFL et al. JAMA. 2020;324:179-87.

With a median follow-up of 10 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), patients who received a radial artery graft rather than a saphenous vein graft as a second conduit were less likely to experience death, MI, or repeat revascularization, according to pooled data from five randomized trials.

The same result from the same set of data was produced after a median of 5 years, but the longer follow-up provides a more compelling case for the superiority of the radial artery graft, according to the authors of this meta-analysis, led by Mario F.L. Gaudino, MD, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

For the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization, the favorable hazard ratio at 5 years corresponded to a 33% risk reduction (HR, 0.67; P = .01), according to the previously published results (Gaudino M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069-77).

The new data at 10 years show about the same risk reduction for the primary endpoint, but with more robust statistical significance (HR, 0.73; P < .001).

More importantly, because of the greater number of events by 10 years, the advantage of radial artery graft for the secondary composite outcome of death or MI has now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.77; P = .01).

In addition, there was a 27% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93) at 10 years associated with the radial artery graft. But this was not a prespecified endpoint, and so this is a hypothesis-generating post hoc finding.

The data was drawn from five randomized trials with a total of 1,036 patients. When used as an additional conduit to an internal thoracic artery in CABG, radial artery grafts relative to saphenous vein grafts were associated with a lower but nonsignificant risk of adverse outcomes in all five trials.

The advantage of radial artery grafts in the meta-analysis at 5 and now 10 years supports a series of observational studies that have also claimed better results with radial artery grafts.

The analysis was published July 14 in JAMA with essentially the same outcomes reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation in March.

However, a editorial that accompanied this meta-analysis in JAMA raised fundamental questions about revascularization.

“Intuitively, high-severity coronary lesions with significant ischemic burden, poor collateralization, and significant myocardium at risk may benefit from a durable revascularization option,” observed the editorial coauthors, Steven E. Nissen, MD, and Faisal G. Bakaeen, MD, both of the Cleveland Clinic. However, they cautioned that there is no definitive evidence that “any revascularization procedure reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with anatomically and physiologically stable coronary artery disease.”

They called the 10-year outcomes from the meta-analysis “the best available long-term data on the potential value of using the radial artery as a bypass conduit,” but warned that no randomized trial has confirmed that two or more conduits are superior to a single internal thoracic artery in CABG to for preventing death and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Such a trial, called ROMA, is now underway (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:1031-40), but results are not expected until 2025.

In the meantime, placement of second conduits remains common in CABG procedures, about 400,000 of which are performed each year in the United States. According to Dr. Gaudino, there are indications and contraindications for second conduits, but radial artery should be the preferred standard when these are considered.

“Our data indicate that the radial artery graft should be used to complement the left internal thoracic artery in all patients who meet the indications for radial artery grafts,” he explained in an interview.

“Unfortunately, at the moment radial artery grafts are used in less than 10% of CABG cases in the U.S.,” he reported. “Hopefully, our data will lead to a larger use of this conduit by the surgical community.”

Dr. Gaudino, the principal investigator, reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Gaudino MFL et al. JAMA. 2020;324:179-87.

A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.

Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.

“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.

Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.

The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.

There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”

Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).

Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.

Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.

Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.

The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.

The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.

“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.

So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.

“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.

The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.

A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.

Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.

“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.

Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.

The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.

There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”

Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).

Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.

Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.

Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.

The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.

The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.

“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.

So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.

“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.

The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.

A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.

Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.

“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.

Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.

The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.

There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”

Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).

Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.

Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.

Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.

The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.

The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.

“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.

So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.

“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.

The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.

A quality initiative to restrict the use of Foley catheters in middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with hip fracture reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) and led to earlier discharge, findings from a study revealed. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We reduced the use of Foley catheters in our target population by more than 50%, which led to a decrease in the rate of hospital-acquired UTI and positively affected other perioperative outcomes,” reported Sanjit R. Konda, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with New York University Langone Health.

The quality initiative was introduced about 2 years ago specifically to reduce the risk of UTI in older patients admitted for femur or hip fractures. Previously at the level 1 trauma center where this quality initiative was introduced, placement of Foley catheters in these types of patients had been routine.

After the policy change, Foley catheters were only offered to these trauma patients 55 years of age or older when more than three episodes or urinary retention had been documented with a bladder scan. Urinary retention was defined as a volume of at least 600 mL.

When outcomes in 184 patients treated in the 15 months after the policy change were compared with 393 treated in the prior 38 months, Foley catheter use was substantially and significantly reduced (43.5% vs. 95.5%; P < .001), Dr. Konda said in an interview.

Although the lower rate of UTI following the policy change fell short of statistical significance (10.33% vs. 14.5%; P = .167), the policy change was associated with a decreased time to surgery (33.27 vs. 38.54 hours; P = .001), shorter length of stay (6.89 vs. 8.34 days; P < .001), and higher rate of home discharge (22.8% vs. 15.6%; P = .038).

When those who avoided a Foley catheter were compared with those who did not after the policy change, there was a significant reduction in UTI (4.81% vs. 17.4%; P = .014). In addition, patients who avoided a Foley catheter had a decreased time to surgery (P = .014), shorter length of stay (P < .001) and an almost 900% greater likelihood of home discharge (odds ratio, 9.9; P < .001).

“This quality initiative does increase the number of bladder scans required, meaning more work for nurses, but the program was developed in collaboration with our nursing staff, who were supportive of the goals,” Dr. Konda reported.

Reducing the incidence of UTI is an important initiative because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers employ this as a quality metric, according to Dr. Konda. This explains why hospital administrators generally embrace effective strategies to reduce UTI rates.

The improvement in outcomes, including the reduction in UTIs and length of stay, has cost implications, which will be evaluated in a future analysis, according to Dr. Konda.

Although this quality initiative was undertaken in a level 1 trauma center, Dr. Konda believes the same principles can be applied to other settings.

Jennifer A. Meddings, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agreed. Active in the evaluation of strategies to reduce hospital-acquired complications, Dr. Meddings published a study of procedural appropriateness ratings to guide strategies for improving the likelihood that catheters are employed only when needed (BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:56-66).

“In addition to avoiding UTI, reducing unnecessary placement of Foley catheters also eliminates the risk of trauma to the urinary tract,” Dr. Meddings said. This is a complication that is not well appreciated because the trauma is not always documented, according to Dr. Meddings, who believes increased risk of both UTI and urinary tract trauma should discourage use of Foley catheters when there is not a specific indication.

Although there are criteria other than excess bladder volume to determine when to consider a Foley catheter, Dr. Meddings encourages any systematic approach that increases the likelihood that catheters are not placed unnecessarily. She emphasized that a hip fracture by itself “is not a criterion for catheterization.”

Dr. Konda reported a financial relationship with Stryker.
 

A quality initiative to restrict the use of Foley catheters in middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with hip fracture reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) and led to earlier discharge, findings from a study revealed. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We reduced the use of Foley catheters in our target population by more than 50%, which led to a decrease in the rate of hospital-acquired UTI and positively affected other perioperative outcomes,” reported Sanjit R. Konda, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with New York University Langone Health.

The quality initiative was introduced about 2 years ago specifically to reduce the risk of UTI in older patients admitted for femur or hip fractures. Previously at the level 1 trauma center where this quality initiative was introduced, placement of Foley catheters in these types of patients had been routine.

After the policy change, Foley catheters were only offered to these trauma patients 55 years of age or older when more than three episodes or urinary retention had been documented with a bladder scan. Urinary retention was defined as a volume of at least 600 mL.

When outcomes in 184 patients treated in the 15 months after the policy change were compared with 393 treated in the prior 38 months, Foley catheter use was substantially and significantly reduced (43.5% vs. 95.5%; P < .001), Dr. Konda said in an interview.

Although the lower rate of UTI following the policy change fell short of statistical significance (10.33% vs. 14.5%; P = .167), the policy change was associated with a decreased time to surgery (33.27 vs. 38.54 hours; P = .001), shorter length of stay (6.89 vs. 8.34 days; P < .001), and higher rate of home discharge (22.8% vs. 15.6%; P = .038).

When those who avoided a Foley catheter were compared with those who did not after the policy change, there was a significant reduction in UTI (4.81% vs. 17.4%; P = .014). In addition, patients who avoided a Foley catheter had a decreased time to surgery (P = .014), shorter length of stay (P < .001) and an almost 900% greater likelihood of home discharge (odds ratio, 9.9; P < .001).

“This quality initiative does increase the number of bladder scans required, meaning more work for nurses, but the program was developed in collaboration with our nursing staff, who were supportive of the goals,” Dr. Konda reported.

Reducing the incidence of UTI is an important initiative because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers employ this as a quality metric, according to Dr. Konda. This explains why hospital administrators generally embrace effective strategies to reduce UTI rates.

The improvement in outcomes, including the reduction in UTIs and length of stay, has cost implications, which will be evaluated in a future analysis, according to Dr. Konda.

Although this quality initiative was undertaken in a level 1 trauma center, Dr. Konda believes the same principles can be applied to other settings.

Jennifer A. Meddings, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agreed. Active in the evaluation of strategies to reduce hospital-acquired complications, Dr. Meddings published a study of procedural appropriateness ratings to guide strategies for improving the likelihood that catheters are employed only when needed (BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:56-66).

“In addition to avoiding UTI, reducing unnecessary placement of Foley catheters also eliminates the risk of trauma to the urinary tract,” Dr. Meddings said. This is a complication that is not well appreciated because the trauma is not always documented, according to Dr. Meddings, who believes increased risk of both UTI and urinary tract trauma should discourage use of Foley catheters when there is not a specific indication.

Although there are criteria other than excess bladder volume to determine when to consider a Foley catheter, Dr. Meddings encourages any systematic approach that increases the likelihood that catheters are not placed unnecessarily. She emphasized that a hip fracture by itself “is not a criterion for catheterization.”

Dr. Konda reported a financial relationship with Stryker.
 

A quality initiative to restrict the use of Foley catheters in middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with hip fracture reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) and led to earlier discharge, findings from a study revealed. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We reduced the use of Foley catheters in our target population by more than 50%, which led to a decrease in the rate of hospital-acquired UTI and positively affected other perioperative outcomes,” reported Sanjit R. Konda, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with New York University Langone Health.

The quality initiative was introduced about 2 years ago specifically to reduce the risk of UTI in older patients admitted for femur or hip fractures. Previously at the level 1 trauma center where this quality initiative was introduced, placement of Foley catheters in these types of patients had been routine.

After the policy change, Foley catheters were only offered to these trauma patients 55 years of age or older when more than three episodes or urinary retention had been documented with a bladder scan. Urinary retention was defined as a volume of at least 600 mL.

When outcomes in 184 patients treated in the 15 months after the policy change were compared with 393 treated in the prior 38 months, Foley catheter use was substantially and significantly reduced (43.5% vs. 95.5%; P < .001), Dr. Konda said in an interview.

Although the lower rate of UTI following the policy change fell short of statistical significance (10.33% vs. 14.5%; P = .167), the policy change was associated with a decreased time to surgery (33.27 vs. 38.54 hours; P = .001), shorter length of stay (6.89 vs. 8.34 days; P < .001), and higher rate of home discharge (22.8% vs. 15.6%; P = .038).

When those who avoided a Foley catheter were compared with those who did not after the policy change, there was a significant reduction in UTI (4.81% vs. 17.4%; P = .014). In addition, patients who avoided a Foley catheter had a decreased time to surgery (P = .014), shorter length of stay (P < .001) and an almost 900% greater likelihood of home discharge (odds ratio, 9.9; P < .001).

“This quality initiative does increase the number of bladder scans required, meaning more work for nurses, but the program was developed in collaboration with our nursing staff, who were supportive of the goals,” Dr. Konda reported.

Reducing the incidence of UTI is an important initiative because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers employ this as a quality metric, according to Dr. Konda. This explains why hospital administrators generally embrace effective strategies to reduce UTI rates.

The improvement in outcomes, including the reduction in UTIs and length of stay, has cost implications, which will be evaluated in a future analysis, according to Dr. Konda.

Although this quality initiative was undertaken in a level 1 trauma center, Dr. Konda believes the same principles can be applied to other settings.

Jennifer A. Meddings, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agreed. Active in the evaluation of strategies to reduce hospital-acquired complications, Dr. Meddings published a study of procedural appropriateness ratings to guide strategies for improving the likelihood that catheters are employed only when needed (BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:56-66).

“In addition to avoiding UTI, reducing unnecessary placement of Foley catheters also eliminates the risk of trauma to the urinary tract,” Dr. Meddings said. This is a complication that is not well appreciated because the trauma is not always documented, according to Dr. Meddings, who believes increased risk of both UTI and urinary tract trauma should discourage use of Foley catheters when there is not a specific indication.

Although there are criteria other than excess bladder volume to determine when to consider a Foley catheter, Dr. Meddings encourages any systematic approach that increases the likelihood that catheters are not placed unnecessarily. She emphasized that a hip fracture by itself “is not a criterion for catheterization.”

Dr. Konda reported a financial relationship with Stryker.
 

A simple tool to guide choice of antithrombotic therapy following total joint arthroplasty led to a reduction in pulmonary embolism (PE) after being introduced systemwide, according to a prospectively tracked evaluation of a large patient cohort. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We developed a simplified scoring system for evaluating risk of thromboembolism and guiding prophylaxis that led to a significant reduction in events across a large integrated health care system,” reported James Wylie, MD, associate medical director for hip and knee preservation and orthopedic research at Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah.

The goal of the methodology was to create a uniform and evidence-based approach to risk assessment in order to guide selection of appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. The tool takes into account the need to individualize antithrombotic drugs for risk of both VTE and for bleeding.

“VTE is a major threat following total joint replacement, but not all patients require anticoagulants. Recent evidence supports a shift to aspirin for low-risk patients,” explained Dr. Wylie in an interview.

The risk tool assigns points for such factors as history of VTE, older age, history of coronary artery disease, history of cancer, and increased body mass index. There are two possible ratings to guide strategies. Those with standard risk are candidates for 81 mg of aspirin twice daily. Those with high risk are candidates for 2.5 mg of apixaban, also administered twice daily. Custom dosing of warfarin is an alternative for the latter group. Regardless of strategy, prophylaxis is administered for 30 days following arthroplasty

“The risk score is calculated automatically, because you have to click a box in the electronic medical record for all of those factors as part of admission orders,” Dr. Wylie said.

The protocol was introduced in July 2017 and adoption was tracked prospectively over 18 months. In an evaluable cohort of 20,284 patients, PE rates in the 71% of patients adherent to the protocol were compared with the 29% who were not.

Over the observation period, the rates of PE were 0.34% and 0.62% (P = .004) for those adherent and nonadherent, respectively. The rate of unplanned readmissions and death, which were secondary outcomes, were both numerically lower in the group treated by adherent surgeons, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Adoption of the protocol by surgeons did increase over the course of the observation period, and this correlated with a decrease in unplanned readmissions. Bleeding-related readmission was a rare event in this analysis and did not significantly increase over time, according to Dr. Wylie.

The risk assessment tool, developed by a multispecialty team at Intermountain Healthcare, was based on a review of hundreds of published papers and guidelines, according to Nathan Momberger, MD, who is the associate medical director of total joint replacement at Intermountain and was a coauthor on this study. A member of the team that developed the risk assessment tool, Dr. Momberger noted that new risk score was developed at a time when clinicians have been moving quickly away from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants.

“None of our surgeons were using the same VTE prophylaxis when we started this project,” Dr. Momberger said. This was a motivation for developing a systemwide approach. In the 22 participating hospitals, there were 50 surgeons performing total knee arthroplasty and 40 surgeons were performing total hip surgery at the time the new protocol was introduced.

Further analyses will provide a more detailed analysis of the effect of the protocol on other thrombotic events, including deep vein thrombosis, and on cost. Since these data were analyzed, protocol adoption has increased and now exceeds 80%, according to Dr. Wylie.

Although a standardized approach to VTE prophylaxis following total joint arthroplasty is attractive, the ideal strategy remains controversial, according to Sunny Parikh, MD, an orthopedic surgeon affiliated with Colchester (England) General Hospital.

As a coauthor of a recent study that quantified symptomatic VTE rates at his and a neighboring hospital over a 3-year period (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:95), Dr. Parikh reported that VTE rates did not reach zero even with a prolonged course of the low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin.

At 90 days, the symptomatic VTE rate was only 0.3% for total knee arthroplasty but reached 1.2% for total hip arthroplasty.

“At the time of this study we were using enoxaparin for 28 days following total hip replacements and for 14 days following total knee replacements,” Dr. Parikh reported. Since this study, his institution has switched to a regimen recommended by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Under the NICE guidelines, VTE prophylaxis for total hip arthroplasty is 40 mg enoxaparin once daily for 14 days followed by 75 mg aspirin for another 14 days, according to Dr. Parikh. For total knee arthroplasty, the standard regimen is 75 mg aspirin for 14 days.

For those who might not be best managed with the standard approach, “there is no clear guideline.” Rather, in patients with renal or liver impairment, “we discuss the case with the hematology team to adjust the doses,” Dr. Parikh reported.

The advantage of a standardized approach applied to all or most patients is that is eliminates disparities, but Dr. Parikh agreed that risk-adjusted prophylaxis might be warranted for optimal outcomes.

Dr. Wylie reported a financial relationship with Arthrex.
 

A simple tool to guide choice of antithrombotic therapy following total joint arthroplasty led to a reduction in pulmonary embolism (PE) after being introduced systemwide, according to a prospectively tracked evaluation of a large patient cohort. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We developed a simplified scoring system for evaluating risk of thromboembolism and guiding prophylaxis that led to a significant reduction in events across a large integrated health care system,” reported James Wylie, MD, associate medical director for hip and knee preservation and orthopedic research at Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah.

The goal of the methodology was to create a uniform and evidence-based approach to risk assessment in order to guide selection of appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. The tool takes into account the need to individualize antithrombotic drugs for risk of both VTE and for bleeding.

“VTE is a major threat following total joint replacement, but not all patients require anticoagulants. Recent evidence supports a shift to aspirin for low-risk patients,” explained Dr. Wylie in an interview.

The risk tool assigns points for such factors as history of VTE, older age, history of coronary artery disease, history of cancer, and increased body mass index. There are two possible ratings to guide strategies. Those with standard risk are candidates for 81 mg of aspirin twice daily. Those with high risk are candidates for 2.5 mg of apixaban, also administered twice daily. Custom dosing of warfarin is an alternative for the latter group. Regardless of strategy, prophylaxis is administered for 30 days following arthroplasty

“The risk score is calculated automatically, because you have to click a box in the electronic medical record for all of those factors as part of admission orders,” Dr. Wylie said.

The protocol was introduced in July 2017 and adoption was tracked prospectively over 18 months. In an evaluable cohort of 20,284 patients, PE rates in the 71% of patients adherent to the protocol were compared with the 29% who were not.

Over the observation period, the rates of PE were 0.34% and 0.62% (P = .004) for those adherent and nonadherent, respectively. The rate of unplanned readmissions and death, which were secondary outcomes, were both numerically lower in the group treated by adherent surgeons, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Adoption of the protocol by surgeons did increase over the course of the observation period, and this correlated with a decrease in unplanned readmissions. Bleeding-related readmission was a rare event in this analysis and did not significantly increase over time, according to Dr. Wylie.

The risk assessment tool, developed by a multispecialty team at Intermountain Healthcare, was based on a review of hundreds of published papers and guidelines, according to Nathan Momberger, MD, who is the associate medical director of total joint replacement at Intermountain and was a coauthor on this study. A member of the team that developed the risk assessment tool, Dr. Momberger noted that new risk score was developed at a time when clinicians have been moving quickly away from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants.

“None of our surgeons were using the same VTE prophylaxis when we started this project,” Dr. Momberger said. This was a motivation for developing a systemwide approach. In the 22 participating hospitals, there were 50 surgeons performing total knee arthroplasty and 40 surgeons were performing total hip surgery at the time the new protocol was introduced.

Further analyses will provide a more detailed analysis of the effect of the protocol on other thrombotic events, including deep vein thrombosis, and on cost. Since these data were analyzed, protocol adoption has increased and now exceeds 80%, according to Dr. Wylie.

Although a standardized approach to VTE prophylaxis following total joint arthroplasty is attractive, the ideal strategy remains controversial, according to Sunny Parikh, MD, an orthopedic surgeon affiliated with Colchester (England) General Hospital.

As a coauthor of a recent study that quantified symptomatic VTE rates at his and a neighboring hospital over a 3-year period (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:95), Dr. Parikh reported that VTE rates did not reach zero even with a prolonged course of the low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin.

At 90 days, the symptomatic VTE rate was only 0.3% for total knee arthroplasty but reached 1.2% for total hip arthroplasty.

“At the time of this study we were using enoxaparin for 28 days following total hip replacements and for 14 days following total knee replacements,” Dr. Parikh reported. Since this study, his institution has switched to a regimen recommended by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Under the NICE guidelines, VTE prophylaxis for total hip arthroplasty is 40 mg enoxaparin once daily for 14 days followed by 75 mg aspirin for another 14 days, according to Dr. Parikh. For total knee arthroplasty, the standard regimen is 75 mg aspirin for 14 days.

For those who might not be best managed with the standard approach, “there is no clear guideline.” Rather, in patients with renal or liver impairment, “we discuss the case with the hematology team to adjust the doses,” Dr. Parikh reported.

The advantage of a standardized approach applied to all or most patients is that is eliminates disparities, but Dr. Parikh agreed that risk-adjusted prophylaxis might be warranted for optimal outcomes.

Dr. Wylie reported a financial relationship with Arthrex.
 

A simple tool to guide choice of antithrombotic therapy following total joint arthroplasty led to a reduction in pulmonary embolism (PE) after being introduced systemwide, according to a prospectively tracked evaluation of a large patient cohort. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We developed a simplified scoring system for evaluating risk of thromboembolism and guiding prophylaxis that led to a significant reduction in events across a large integrated health care system,” reported James Wylie, MD, associate medical director for hip and knee preservation and orthopedic research at Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah.

The goal of the methodology was to create a uniform and evidence-based approach to risk assessment in order to guide selection of appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. The tool takes into account the need to individualize antithrombotic drugs for risk of both VTE and for bleeding.

“VTE is a major threat following total joint replacement, but not all patients require anticoagulants. Recent evidence supports a shift to aspirin for low-risk patients,” explained Dr. Wylie in an interview.

The risk tool assigns points for such factors as history of VTE, older age, history of coronary artery disease, history of cancer, and increased body mass index. There are two possible ratings to guide strategies. Those with standard risk are candidates for 81 mg of aspirin twice daily. Those with high risk are candidates for 2.5 mg of apixaban, also administered twice daily. Custom dosing of warfarin is an alternative for the latter group. Regardless of strategy, prophylaxis is administered for 30 days following arthroplasty

“The risk score is calculated automatically, because you have to click a box in the electronic medical record for all of those factors as part of admission orders,” Dr. Wylie said.

The protocol was introduced in July 2017 and adoption was tracked prospectively over 18 months. In an evaluable cohort of 20,284 patients, PE rates in the 71% of patients adherent to the protocol were compared with the 29% who were not.

Over the observation period, the rates of PE were 0.34% and 0.62% (P = .004) for those adherent and nonadherent, respectively. The rate of unplanned readmissions and death, which were secondary outcomes, were both numerically lower in the group treated by adherent surgeons, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Adoption of the protocol by surgeons did increase over the course of the observation period, and this correlated with a decrease in unplanned readmissions. Bleeding-related readmission was a rare event in this analysis and did not significantly increase over time, according to Dr. Wylie.

The risk assessment tool, developed by a multispecialty team at Intermountain Healthcare, was based on a review of hundreds of published papers and guidelines, according to Nathan Momberger, MD, who is the associate medical director of total joint replacement at Intermountain and was a coauthor on this study. A member of the team that developed the risk assessment tool, Dr. Momberger noted that new risk score was developed at a time when clinicians have been moving quickly away from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants.

“None of our surgeons were using the same VTE prophylaxis when we started this project,” Dr. Momberger said. This was a motivation for developing a systemwide approach. In the 22 participating hospitals, there were 50 surgeons performing total knee arthroplasty and 40 surgeons were performing total hip surgery at the time the new protocol was introduced.

Further analyses will provide a more detailed analysis of the effect of the protocol on other thrombotic events, including deep vein thrombosis, and on cost. Since these data were analyzed, protocol adoption has increased and now exceeds 80%, according to Dr. Wylie.

Although a standardized approach to VTE prophylaxis following total joint arthroplasty is attractive, the ideal strategy remains controversial, according to Sunny Parikh, MD, an orthopedic surgeon affiliated with Colchester (England) General Hospital.

As a coauthor of a recent study that quantified symptomatic VTE rates at his and a neighboring hospital over a 3-year period (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:95), Dr. Parikh reported that VTE rates did not reach zero even with a prolonged course of the low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin.

At 90 days, the symptomatic VTE rate was only 0.3% for total knee arthroplasty but reached 1.2% for total hip arthroplasty.

“At the time of this study we were using enoxaparin for 28 days following total hip replacements and for 14 days following total knee replacements,” Dr. Parikh reported. Since this study, his institution has switched to a regimen recommended by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Under the NICE guidelines, VTE prophylaxis for total hip arthroplasty is 40 mg enoxaparin once daily for 14 days followed by 75 mg aspirin for another 14 days, according to Dr. Parikh. For total knee arthroplasty, the standard regimen is 75 mg aspirin for 14 days.

For those who might not be best managed with the standard approach, “there is no clear guideline.” Rather, in patients with renal or liver impairment, “we discuss the case with the hematology team to adjust the doses,” Dr. Parikh reported.

The advantage of a standardized approach applied to all or most patients is that is eliminates disparities, but Dr. Parikh agreed that risk-adjusted prophylaxis might be warranted for optimal outcomes.

Dr. Wylie reported a financial relationship with Arthrex.
 

When results in a series of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties (TKA) were compared with a series of arthroplasties performed manually by the same surgeon, results were comparable even though the robotic procedures included a learning phase. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“Robotics appears to level the playing field for those who are less experienced, so that robotic total knee arthroplasty might be particularly well suited to low-volume surgeons,” reported Sridhar R. Rachala, MD, assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, University of Buffalo (N.Y.).

In this retrospective cohort study, radiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated in 164 total knee arthroplasties performed manually over an 8-month period and compared with 300 procedures performed robotically by the same experienced surgeon over the subsequent 15-month period.

There were no significant differences between patient groups for mean age or body mass index. Dr. Rachala, who performed both sets of procedures, reported inherent differences in technique. Specifically, the mechanical alignment was planned for a traditional neutral mechanical axis, while the robotic procedures were planned in kinematic alignment.

When evaluated at 1 year, the mean KOOS JR (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome for Joint Replacement) scores were not significantly different for the robotic and manually performed procedures (76.0 vs. 73.9; P = .54). There were also no differences in the final extension (P = .64) or flexion (P = .59).

However, the difference in mean length of stay (2.0 vs. 2.4 days; P = .0002) favored the robotic approach, and the higher proportion of patients discharged to home after robotic surgery (73% vs. 66%; P = .11) suggested a favorable trend. Planned and postoperative alignment was within two degrees for both groups and not significantly different.

“The robotic series were at a disadvantage because it included cases that I performed when first switching to this approach,” reported Dr. Rachala in an interview.

Although a growing number of total hip arthroplasties are performed robotically, there have not so far been many comparisons of clinical outcomes among surgeons experienced with both approaches, according to Dr. Rachala. Acknowledging that a single-surgeon experience could be considered a limitation of this series, Dr. Rachala also considers it a potential strength. Dr. Rachala was highly experienced with manually instrumented total knee arthroplasty when he switched.

“Positioning and alignment are not just more accurate but easier to perform with robotic assistance,” he said, explaining why this approach is likely to offer a particular advantage to surgeons who perform these types of arthroplasties at low volume. He noted that robotic programming helps prevent errors and adopt alternative more personalized alignments.

Although Dr. Rachala acknowledged that long-term and controlled studies are needed, his experience suggests that robotic-assisted procedures are emerging as a viable alternative with advantages for the surgeon as well as the patient.

The principle that robotic assistance can add consistency to total joint arthroplasty is valid, according to Gwo-Chin Lee, MD, an associate professor of orthopaedic surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Robotic-assisted arthroplasty improves the accuracy and consistency of the procedure, which can potentially reduce the likelihood of failure. In knees, it is proven to be valuable in unicompartmental replacements in which results are correlated to a surgeon’s surgical volume. It has an equalizing effect relative to a surgeon with more extensive experience,” Dr. Lee said.

The senior author of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (J Knee Surg. 2020 Jan 30; doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701455), Dr. Lee said, “While the impact of robotics on other metrics including patient satisfaction and early recovery continues to be debated among surgeons who specialize in total knee arthroplasties, the technology can aid surgeons in component position, sizing, and ligament balance, particularly for the lower-volume surgeons and ultimately lead to more predictable outcomes.”

Dr. Rachala reports a financial relationship with Avanos and Stryker.

SOURCE: Rachala S et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract P0091.

When results in a series of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties (TKA) were compared with a series of arthroplasties performed manually by the same surgeon, results were comparable even though the robotic procedures included a learning phase. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“Robotics appears to level the playing field for those who are less experienced, so that robotic total knee arthroplasty might be particularly well suited to low-volume surgeons,” reported Sridhar R. Rachala, MD, assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, University of Buffalo (N.Y.).

In this retrospective cohort study, radiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated in 164 total knee arthroplasties performed manually over an 8-month period and compared with 300 procedures performed robotically by the same experienced surgeon over the subsequent 15-month period.

There were no significant differences between patient groups for mean age or body mass index. Dr. Rachala, who performed both sets of procedures, reported inherent differences in technique. Specifically, the mechanical alignment was planned for a traditional neutral mechanical axis, while the robotic procedures were planned in kinematic alignment.

When evaluated at 1 year, the mean KOOS JR (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome for Joint Replacement) scores were not significantly different for the robotic and manually performed procedures (76.0 vs. 73.9; P = .54). There were also no differences in the final extension (P = .64) or flexion (P = .59).

However, the difference in mean length of stay (2.0 vs. 2.4 days; P = .0002) favored the robotic approach, and the higher proportion of patients discharged to home after robotic surgery (73% vs. 66%; P = .11) suggested a favorable trend. Planned and postoperative alignment was within two degrees for both groups and not significantly different.

“The robotic series were at a disadvantage because it included cases that I performed when first switching to this approach,” reported Dr. Rachala in an interview.

Although a growing number of total hip arthroplasties are performed robotically, there have not so far been many comparisons of clinical outcomes among surgeons experienced with both approaches, according to Dr. Rachala. Acknowledging that a single-surgeon experience could be considered a limitation of this series, Dr. Rachala also considers it a potential strength. Dr. Rachala was highly experienced with manually instrumented total knee arthroplasty when he switched.

“Positioning and alignment are not just more accurate but easier to perform with robotic assistance,” he said, explaining why this approach is likely to offer a particular advantage to surgeons who perform these types of arthroplasties at low volume. He noted that robotic programming helps prevent errors and adopt alternative more personalized alignments.

Although Dr. Rachala acknowledged that long-term and controlled studies are needed, his experience suggests that robotic-assisted procedures are emerging as a viable alternative with advantages for the surgeon as well as the patient.

The principle that robotic assistance can add consistency to total joint arthroplasty is valid, according to Gwo-Chin Lee, MD, an associate professor of orthopaedic surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Robotic-assisted arthroplasty improves the accuracy and consistency of the procedure, which can potentially reduce the likelihood of failure. In knees, it is proven to be valuable in unicompartmental replacements in which results are correlated to a surgeon’s surgical volume. It has an equalizing effect relative to a surgeon with more extensive experience,” Dr. Lee said.

The senior author of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (J Knee Surg. 2020 Jan 30; doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701455), Dr. Lee said, “While the impact of robotics on other metrics including patient satisfaction and early recovery continues to be debated among surgeons who specialize in total knee arthroplasties, the technology can aid surgeons in component position, sizing, and ligament balance, particularly for the lower-volume surgeons and ultimately lead to more predictable outcomes.”

Dr. Rachala reports a financial relationship with Avanos and Stryker.

SOURCE: Rachala S et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract P0091.

When results in a series of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasties (TKA) were compared with a series of arthroplasties performed manually by the same surgeon, results were comparable even though the robotic procedures included a learning phase. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“Robotics appears to level the playing field for those who are less experienced, so that robotic total knee arthroplasty might be particularly well suited to low-volume surgeons,” reported Sridhar R. Rachala, MD, assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, University of Buffalo (N.Y.).

In this retrospective cohort study, radiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated in 164 total knee arthroplasties performed manually over an 8-month period and compared with 300 procedures performed robotically by the same experienced surgeon over the subsequent 15-month period.

There were no significant differences between patient groups for mean age or body mass index. Dr. Rachala, who performed both sets of procedures, reported inherent differences in technique. Specifically, the mechanical alignment was planned for a traditional neutral mechanical axis, while the robotic procedures were planned in kinematic alignment.

When evaluated at 1 year, the mean KOOS JR (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome for Joint Replacement) scores were not significantly different for the robotic and manually performed procedures (76.0 vs. 73.9; P = .54). There were also no differences in the final extension (P = .64) or flexion (P = .59).

However, the difference in mean length of stay (2.0 vs. 2.4 days; P = .0002) favored the robotic approach, and the higher proportion of patients discharged to home after robotic surgery (73% vs. 66%; P = .11) suggested a favorable trend. Planned and postoperative alignment was within two degrees for both groups and not significantly different.

“The robotic series were at a disadvantage because it included cases that I performed when first switching to this approach,” reported Dr. Rachala in an interview.

Although a growing number of total hip arthroplasties are performed robotically, there have not so far been many comparisons of clinical outcomes among surgeons experienced with both approaches, according to Dr. Rachala. Acknowledging that a single-surgeon experience could be considered a limitation of this series, Dr. Rachala also considers it a potential strength. Dr. Rachala was highly experienced with manually instrumented total knee arthroplasty when he switched.

“Positioning and alignment are not just more accurate but easier to perform with robotic assistance,” he said, explaining why this approach is likely to offer a particular advantage to surgeons who perform these types of arthroplasties at low volume. He noted that robotic programming helps prevent errors and adopt alternative more personalized alignments.

Although Dr. Rachala acknowledged that long-term and controlled studies are needed, his experience suggests that robotic-assisted procedures are emerging as a viable alternative with advantages for the surgeon as well as the patient.

The principle that robotic assistance can add consistency to total joint arthroplasty is valid, according to Gwo-Chin Lee, MD, an associate professor of orthopaedic surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Robotic-assisted arthroplasty improves the accuracy and consistency of the procedure, which can potentially reduce the likelihood of failure. In knees, it is proven to be valuable in unicompartmental replacements in which results are correlated to a surgeon’s surgical volume. It has an equalizing effect relative to a surgeon with more extensive experience,” Dr. Lee said.

The senior author of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (J Knee Surg. 2020 Jan 30; doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701455), Dr. Lee said, “While the impact of robotics on other metrics including patient satisfaction and early recovery continues to be debated among surgeons who specialize in total knee arthroplasties, the technology can aid surgeons in component position, sizing, and ligament balance, particularly for the lower-volume surgeons and ultimately lead to more predictable outcomes.”

Dr. Rachala reports a financial relationship with Avanos and Stryker.

SOURCE: Rachala S et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract P0091.

Prior to shoulder surgery, application of 3% hydrogen peroxide is a simple and inexpensive strategy to reduce the risk of postoperative cultures of Cutibacterium acnes, according to findings from a prospective randomized trial. The results were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“This approach is simple, cheap, and does not rely on patient compliance,” explained Surena Namdari, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

C. acnes, formerly known as Propionibacterium acnes, is increasingly seen as an important target for prevention of postoperative shoulder infections because of published reports that it is the most commonly isolated bacterium from such infections, Dr. Namdari said in an interview.

In the prospective, randomized trial, male patients scheduled for shoulder arthroscopy were recruited if they did not have active acne, history of psoriatic or eczematous lesions, or recent antibiotic use. Most of the preoperative preparation of the surgical site was the same in the experimental and control arms. This included hair clipping, application of 2% chlorhexidine, and cleansing with saturated 7.5% povidone-iodine solution surgical scrub brushes.

The difference was that 3% hydrogen peroxide–soaked gauzes were applied to perioperative skin of those randomized to the experimental group but not to controls. All patients received routine preoperative oral antibiotics as well as perioperative applications of a formulation containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol.

Following surgery, 11 (18.6%) of the 59 patients in the experimental arm versus 23 (34.8%) of the 66 patients randomized to the control group had positive cultures for C. acnes (P = .047), according to the trial results, which have now been published (J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29:212-6).

There were no cases of skin reactions in either the experimental or control groups.

Topical skin cleansers that contain peroxide, such as benzoyl peroxide, have been shown to have a C. acnes decolonizing effect if applied repeatedly in the days prior to surgery, but Dr. Namdari suggested the problem with this approach is that it depends on patient compliance. A prophylaxis included in the preoperative routine eliminates this potential problem.

C. acnes is an anaerobic bacterium that is part of the resident flora of the skin around several joints, including the knee and the hip, but it is particularly common in the posterior shoulder. Colonization has been found substantially more common in men than in women, according to Dr. Namdari.

The specific threat posed by C. acnes to risk of postoperative infections “is still being defined,” and this trial was not large enough to associate the reduction in postoperative C. acnes cultures with a reduced risk of an adverse clinical outcome, but Dr. Namdari says that the data do show that the nearly 50% reduction in positive cultures was achieved efficiently and inexpensively with no apparent risk.

Several previous studies have also evaluated strategies for reducing C. acnes skin burden on the basis of expected protection against postoperative infection. In one, which associated a 3-day preoperative course of benzoyl peroxide with a reduction in the skin burden of C. acnes, the authors also concluded that this approach deserves consideration in routine skin preparation for shoulder arthroplasty (J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1539-44).

“We believe that a preoperative skin prep protocol that reduces C. acnes load on the skin would likely lead to reduced postoperative infections,” reported the senior author, Mohit N. Gilotra, MD, assistant professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Contacted about the rationale for reducing C. acnes skin burden without objective evidence of an impact on postoperative infection risk, Dr. Gilotra indicated these strategies make sense.

“It seems to be true for staph infections and is a reasonable assumption to make here,” he added. “Future work will help determine how much benzoyl peroxide, hydrogen peroxide, or other skin prep can reduce surgical site infection.”

Dr. Namdari reports financial relationships with multiple device and pharmaceutical companies but none relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Namdari S et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract P0808.

Prior to shoulder surgery, application of 3% hydrogen peroxide is a simple and inexpensive strategy to reduce the risk of postoperative cultures of Cutibacterium acnes, according to findings from a prospective randomized trial. The results were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“This approach is simple, cheap, and does not rely on patient compliance,” explained Surena Namdari, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

C. acnes, formerly known as Propionibacterium acnes, is increasingly seen as an important target for prevention of postoperative shoulder infections because of published reports that it is the most commonly isolated bacterium from such infections, Dr. Namdari said in an interview.

In the prospective, randomized trial, male patients scheduled for shoulder arthroscopy were recruited if they did not have active acne, history of psoriatic or eczematous lesions, or recent antibiotic use. Most of the preoperative preparation of the surgical site was the same in the experimental and control arms. This included hair clipping, application of 2% chlorhexidine, and cleansing with saturated 7.5% povidone-iodine solution surgical scrub brushes.

The difference was that 3% hydrogen peroxide–soaked gauzes were applied to perioperative skin of those randomized to the experimental group but not to controls. All patients received routine preoperative oral antibiotics as well as perioperative applications of a formulation containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol.

Following surgery, 11 (18.6%) of the 59 patients in the experimental arm versus 23 (34.8%) of the 66 patients randomized to the control group had positive cultures for C. acnes (P = .047), according to the trial results, which have now been published (J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29:212-6).

There were no cases of skin reactions in either the experimental or control groups.

Topical skin cleansers that contain peroxide, such as benzoyl peroxide, have been shown to have a C. acnes decolonizing effect if applied repeatedly in the days prior to surgery, but Dr. Namdari suggested the problem with this approach is that it depends on patient compliance. A prophylaxis included in the preoperative routine eliminates this potential problem.

C. acnes is an anaerobic bacterium that is part of the resident flora of the skin around several joints, including the knee and the hip, but it is particularly common in the posterior shoulder. Colonization has been found substantially more common in men than in women, according to Dr. Namdari.

The specific threat posed by C. acnes to risk of postoperative infections “is still being defined,” and this trial was not large enough to associate the reduction in postoperative C. acnes cultures with a reduced risk of an adverse clinical outcome, but Dr. Namdari says that the data do show that the nearly 50% reduction in positive cultures was achieved efficiently and inexpensively with no apparent risk.

Several previous studies have also evaluated strategies for reducing C. acnes skin burden on the basis of expected protection against postoperative infection. In one, which associated a 3-day preoperative course of benzoyl peroxide with a reduction in the skin burden of C. acnes, the authors also concluded that this approach deserves consideration in routine skin preparation for shoulder arthroplasty (J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1539-44).

“We believe that a preoperative skin prep protocol that reduces C. acnes load on the skin would likely lead to reduced postoperative infections,” reported the senior author, Mohit N. Gilotra, MD, assistant professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Contacted about the rationale for reducing C. acnes skin burden without objective evidence of an impact on postoperative infection risk, Dr. Gilotra indicated these strategies make sense.

“It seems to be true for staph infections and is a reasonable assumption to make here,” he added. “Future work will help determine how much benzoyl peroxide, hydrogen peroxide, or other skin prep can reduce surgical site infection.”

Dr. Namdari reports financial relationships with multiple device and pharmaceutical companies but none relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Namdari S et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract P0808.

Prior to shoulder surgery, application of 3% hydrogen peroxide is a simple and inexpensive strategy to reduce the risk of postoperative cultures of Cutibacterium acnes, according to findings from a prospective randomized trial. The results were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“This approach is simple, cheap, and does not rely on patient compliance,” explained Surena Namdari, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

C. acnes, formerly known as Propionibacterium acnes, is increasingly seen as an important target for prevention of postoperative shoulder infections because of published reports that it is the most commonly isolated bacterium from such infections, Dr. Namdari said in an interview.

In the prospective, randomized trial, male patients scheduled for shoulder arthroscopy were recruited if they did not have active acne, history of psoriatic or eczematous lesions, or recent antibiotic use. Most of the preoperative preparation of the surgical site was the same in the experimental and control arms. This included hair clipping, application of 2% chlorhexidine, and cleansing with saturated 7.5% povidone-iodine solution surgical scrub brushes.

The difference was that 3% hydrogen peroxide–soaked gauzes were applied to perioperative skin of those randomized to the experimental group but not to controls. All patients received routine preoperative oral antibiotics as well as perioperative applications of a formulation containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol.

Following surgery, 11 (18.6%) of the 59 patients in the experimental arm versus 23 (34.8%) of the 66 patients randomized to the control group had positive cultures for C. acnes (P = .047), according to the trial results, which have now been published (J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29:212-6).

There were no cases of skin reactions in either the experimental or control groups.

Topical skin cleansers that contain peroxide, such as benzoyl peroxide, have been shown to have a C. acnes decolonizing effect if applied repeatedly in the days prior to surgery, but Dr. Namdari suggested the problem with this approach is that it depends on patient compliance. A prophylaxis included in the preoperative routine eliminates this potential problem.

C. acnes is an anaerobic bacterium that is part of the resident flora of the skin around several joints, including the knee and the hip, but it is particularly common in the posterior shoulder. Colonization has been found substantially more common in men than in women, according to Dr. Namdari.

The specific threat posed by C. acnes to risk of postoperative infections “is still being defined,” and this trial was not large enough to associate the reduction in postoperative C. acnes cultures with a reduced risk of an adverse clinical outcome, but Dr. Namdari says that the data do show that the nearly 50% reduction in positive cultures was achieved efficiently and inexpensively with no apparent risk.

Several previous studies have also evaluated strategies for reducing C. acnes skin burden on the basis of expected protection against postoperative infection. In one, which associated a 3-day preoperative course of benzoyl peroxide with a reduction in the skin burden of C. acnes, the authors also concluded that this approach deserves consideration in routine skin preparation for shoulder arthroplasty (J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1539-44).

“We believe that a preoperative skin prep protocol that reduces C. acnes load on the skin would likely lead to reduced postoperative infections,” reported the senior author, Mohit N. Gilotra, MD, assistant professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Contacted about the rationale for reducing C. acnes skin burden without objective evidence of an impact on postoperative infection risk, Dr. Gilotra indicated these strategies make sense.

“It seems to be true for staph infections and is a reasonable assumption to make here,” he added. “Future work will help determine how much benzoyl peroxide, hydrogen peroxide, or other skin prep can reduce surgical site infection.”

Dr. Namdari reports financial relationships with multiple device and pharmaceutical companies but none relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Namdari S et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract P0808.

Two case reports published simultaneously in JAMA Dermatology prompted an accompanying editorial calling for dermatologists to actively participate in the characterization and management of skin complications associated with COVID-19 infection.

It is not yet clear from these or other case reports which, if any, skin eruptions accompanying COVID-19 infections are caused by the virus, but the authors of the editorial, led by Lauren M. Madigan, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, urged dermatologists to lead efforts to find out.

“To fully characterize skin manifestations, it may be necessary for dermatologists to evaluate these patients directly; comprehensive evaluation could reveal important morphologic clues, such as the subtle purpuric nature of skin lesions or the characteristic mucosal or ophthalmologic features of COVID-19,” the authors of the editorial stated.

So far, the patterns of skin symptoms, which have been identified in up to 20% of COVID-19–infected patients in some series, have been heterogeneous as demonstrated in the two published case reports.

In one case, a papulosquamous and erythematous periumbilical patch that appeared on the trunk in an elderly patient 1 day after hospital admission for acute respiratory distress rapidly evolved into a digitate papulosquamous eruption involving the upper arms, shoulder, and back. It was described as “clinically reminiscent” of pityriasis rosea by the authors, from the divisions of dermatology and venereology, pathology, intensive care, and the virology laboratory, of the Hôpital Cochin, Paris.

In the other, pruritic erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae affecting the buttocks, popliteal fossae, anterior thighs, and lower abdomen appeared 3 days after the onset of fever in a 48-year-old man hospitalized in Madrid. A biopsy demonstrated a superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with red cell extravasation and focal papillary edema, “along with focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells,” according to the authors of this report, from the department of dermatology at Ramon y Cajal University, Madrid.

It was unclear whether COVID-19 directly caused either skin eruption. In the patient with the digitate papulosquamous eruption, no virus could be isolated from the skin. Based on high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, it was hypothesized that the rash might have been secondary to an immune response. The rash resolved within a week, but the patient subsequently died of the infection.

In the second case, the petechial lesions, which developed before any treatment was initiated, were said to resemble those associated with other viruses, such as parvovirus B19. This led the investigators to speculate that SARS-CoV-2 “could affect the skin in a similar way,” even though other potential etiologies could not be excluded. Treated with a topical steroid and an oral antihistamine, the skin lesions resolved after 5 days. This patient was discharged after recovering from the respiratory illness after 12 days.

Like previously reported cutaneous eruptions associated with COVID-19 infection, these cases “raise more questions than they provide answers,” wrote the authors of the editorial, but the limited information currently available was the basis for encouraging dermatologists to get involved.

To participate, dermatologists need not necessarily be affiliated with an academic center, according to one of the editorial coauthors, Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She noted that any health professional is invited to submit cases of COVID-19–associated dermatoses to a registry set up by the American Academy of Dermatology.

It is hoped that cases captured in this registry will create sufficient data to allow clinically relevant patterns and etiologies to be characterized.

The need for data is clear to those on the front lines. Kirsten Lo Sicco, MD, associate director of the skin and cancer unit at New York University, reported that her center is already set up to collect data systematically. “At NYU, we are currently working on standardizing laboratory and histopathology work up for COVID-19 patients who present with various skin eruptions.”

The goal, she added, is “to better determine COVID-19 pathophysiology, systemic associations, patient outcomes, and potential therapeutics.”

NYU Langone Health

“Presumably, many of the eruptions seen in the setting of COVID-19 infection are related,” Dr. Lo Sicco explained in an interview. However, skin complications of infection “may overlap with or be a result of other etiologies as well.”

While better testing for COVID-19 and more lesion biopsies will play a critical role in differentiating etiologies, “we must not overcall COVID-19–related skin eruptions and potentially overlook other diagnoses,” Dr. Lo Sicco said.

In recounting some challenges from the NYU experience so far, Dr. Lo Sicco described the difficulty of differentiating COVID-19–related skin eruptions from skin eruptions caused by treatments, such as antibiotics and antivirals, when the presentation is delayed.

“This is where collaboration with our dermatopathologists becomes important. Drug eruptions, viral exanthems, urticarial eruptions, vasculopathy, and vasculitis can all be differentiated on dermpath,” she said.

One early obstacle to the skin biopsies essential for these types of studies was the limited supply of personal protective equipment at many centers, including hospitals in New York. Biopsies could not be safely performed if supplies of masks and gowns were limited.

Recent evidence suggests that some of the more common morphologies, such as purpuric eruptions, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura, are linked to the vasculopathy associated with COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Lo Sicco, but this invites a new set of questions.

One is whether vasculopathies can be prevented with prophylactic anticoagulation. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients are already receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, but Dr. Lo Sicco questioned whether prophylactic anticoagulation might improve prognosis for outpatients, such as those discharged or those never hospitalized. This is a strategy now being investigated.

Ultimately, she agreed with the thrust of the JAMA Dermatology editorial.

“Dermatologists are vital to determine if various morphologies, such as urticarial, vesicular, purpuric, or papulosquamous lesions, have any specific systemic implications or relate to differences in patient outcomes,” she said.

These are exactly the types of issues being actively investigated at her center.

Neither the authors of the case reports nor of the editorial reported any conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCEs: Madigan LM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1438; Diaz-Guimaraens B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741; Sanchez A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1704.

Two case reports published simultaneously in JAMA Dermatology prompted an accompanying editorial calling for dermatologists to actively participate in the characterization and management of skin complications associated with COVID-19 infection.

It is not yet clear from these or other case reports which, if any, skin eruptions accompanying COVID-19 infections are caused by the virus, but the authors of the editorial, led by Lauren M. Madigan, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, urged dermatologists to lead efforts to find out.

“To fully characterize skin manifestations, it may be necessary for dermatologists to evaluate these patients directly; comprehensive evaluation could reveal important morphologic clues, such as the subtle purpuric nature of skin lesions or the characteristic mucosal or ophthalmologic features of COVID-19,” the authors of the editorial stated.

So far, the patterns of skin symptoms, which have been identified in up to 20% of COVID-19–infected patients in some series, have been heterogeneous as demonstrated in the two published case reports.

In one case, a papulosquamous and erythematous periumbilical patch that appeared on the trunk in an elderly patient 1 day after hospital admission for acute respiratory distress rapidly evolved into a digitate papulosquamous eruption involving the upper arms, shoulder, and back. It was described as “clinically reminiscent” of pityriasis rosea by the authors, from the divisions of dermatology and venereology, pathology, intensive care, and the virology laboratory, of the Hôpital Cochin, Paris.

In the other, pruritic erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae affecting the buttocks, popliteal fossae, anterior thighs, and lower abdomen appeared 3 days after the onset of fever in a 48-year-old man hospitalized in Madrid. A biopsy demonstrated a superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with red cell extravasation and focal papillary edema, “along with focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells,” according to the authors of this report, from the department of dermatology at Ramon y Cajal University, Madrid.

It was unclear whether COVID-19 directly caused either skin eruption. In the patient with the digitate papulosquamous eruption, no virus could be isolated from the skin. Based on high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, it was hypothesized that the rash might have been secondary to an immune response. The rash resolved within a week, but the patient subsequently died of the infection.

In the second case, the petechial lesions, which developed before any treatment was initiated, were said to resemble those associated with other viruses, such as parvovirus B19. This led the investigators to speculate that SARS-CoV-2 “could affect the skin in a similar way,” even though other potential etiologies could not be excluded. Treated with a topical steroid and an oral antihistamine, the skin lesions resolved after 5 days. This patient was discharged after recovering from the respiratory illness after 12 days.

Like previously reported cutaneous eruptions associated with COVID-19 infection, these cases “raise more questions than they provide answers,” wrote the authors of the editorial, but the limited information currently available was the basis for encouraging dermatologists to get involved.

To participate, dermatologists need not necessarily be affiliated with an academic center, according to one of the editorial coauthors, Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She noted that any health professional is invited to submit cases of COVID-19–associated dermatoses to a registry set up by the American Academy of Dermatology.

It is hoped that cases captured in this registry will create sufficient data to allow clinically relevant patterns and etiologies to be characterized.

The need for data is clear to those on the front lines. Kirsten Lo Sicco, MD, associate director of the skin and cancer unit at New York University, reported that her center is already set up to collect data systematically. “At NYU, we are currently working on standardizing laboratory and histopathology work up for COVID-19 patients who present with various skin eruptions.”

The goal, she added, is “to better determine COVID-19 pathophysiology, systemic associations, patient outcomes, and potential therapeutics.”

NYU Langone Health

“Presumably, many of the eruptions seen in the setting of COVID-19 infection are related,” Dr. Lo Sicco explained in an interview. However, skin complications of infection “may overlap with or be a result of other etiologies as well.”

While better testing for COVID-19 and more lesion biopsies will play a critical role in differentiating etiologies, “we must not overcall COVID-19–related skin eruptions and potentially overlook other diagnoses,” Dr. Lo Sicco said.

In recounting some challenges from the NYU experience so far, Dr. Lo Sicco described the difficulty of differentiating COVID-19–related skin eruptions from skin eruptions caused by treatments, such as antibiotics and antivirals, when the presentation is delayed.

“This is where collaboration with our dermatopathologists becomes important. Drug eruptions, viral exanthems, urticarial eruptions, vasculopathy, and vasculitis can all be differentiated on dermpath,” she said.

One early obstacle to the skin biopsies essential for these types of studies was the limited supply of personal protective equipment at many centers, including hospitals in New York. Biopsies could not be safely performed if supplies of masks and gowns were limited.

Recent evidence suggests that some of the more common morphologies, such as purpuric eruptions, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura, are linked to the vasculopathy associated with COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Lo Sicco, but this invites a new set of questions.

One is whether vasculopathies can be prevented with prophylactic anticoagulation. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients are already receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, but Dr. Lo Sicco questioned whether prophylactic anticoagulation might improve prognosis for outpatients, such as those discharged or those never hospitalized. This is a strategy now being investigated.

Ultimately, she agreed with the thrust of the JAMA Dermatology editorial.

“Dermatologists are vital to determine if various morphologies, such as urticarial, vesicular, purpuric, or papulosquamous lesions, have any specific systemic implications or relate to differences in patient outcomes,” she said.

These are exactly the types of issues being actively investigated at her center.

Neither the authors of the case reports nor of the editorial reported any conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCEs: Madigan LM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1438; Diaz-Guimaraens B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741; Sanchez A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1704.

Two case reports published simultaneously in JAMA Dermatology prompted an accompanying editorial calling for dermatologists to actively participate in the characterization and management of skin complications associated with COVID-19 infection.

It is not yet clear from these or other case reports which, if any, skin eruptions accompanying COVID-19 infections are caused by the virus, but the authors of the editorial, led by Lauren M. Madigan, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, urged dermatologists to lead efforts to find out.

“To fully characterize skin manifestations, it may be necessary for dermatologists to evaluate these patients directly; comprehensive evaluation could reveal important morphologic clues, such as the subtle purpuric nature of skin lesions or the characteristic mucosal or ophthalmologic features of COVID-19,” the authors of the editorial stated.

So far, the patterns of skin symptoms, which have been identified in up to 20% of COVID-19–infected patients in some series, have been heterogeneous as demonstrated in the two published case reports.

In one case, a papulosquamous and erythematous periumbilical patch that appeared on the trunk in an elderly patient 1 day after hospital admission for acute respiratory distress rapidly evolved into a digitate papulosquamous eruption involving the upper arms, shoulder, and back. It was described as “clinically reminiscent” of pityriasis rosea by the authors, from the divisions of dermatology and venereology, pathology, intensive care, and the virology laboratory, of the Hôpital Cochin, Paris.

In the other, pruritic erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae affecting the buttocks, popliteal fossae, anterior thighs, and lower abdomen appeared 3 days after the onset of fever in a 48-year-old man hospitalized in Madrid. A biopsy demonstrated a superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with red cell extravasation and focal papillary edema, “along with focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells,” according to the authors of this report, from the department of dermatology at Ramon y Cajal University, Madrid.

It was unclear whether COVID-19 directly caused either skin eruption. In the patient with the digitate papulosquamous eruption, no virus could be isolated from the skin. Based on high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, it was hypothesized that the rash might have been secondary to an immune response. The rash resolved within a week, but the patient subsequently died of the infection.

In the second case, the petechial lesions, which developed before any treatment was initiated, were said to resemble those associated with other viruses, such as parvovirus B19. This led the investigators to speculate that SARS-CoV-2 “could affect the skin in a similar way,” even though other potential etiologies could not be excluded. Treated with a topical steroid and an oral antihistamine, the skin lesions resolved after 5 days. This patient was discharged after recovering from the respiratory illness after 12 days.

Like previously reported cutaneous eruptions associated with COVID-19 infection, these cases “raise more questions than they provide answers,” wrote the authors of the editorial, but the limited information currently available was the basis for encouraging dermatologists to get involved.

To participate, dermatologists need not necessarily be affiliated with an academic center, according to one of the editorial coauthors, Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She noted that any health professional is invited to submit cases of COVID-19–associated dermatoses to a registry set up by the American Academy of Dermatology.

It is hoped that cases captured in this registry will create sufficient data to allow clinically relevant patterns and etiologies to be characterized.

The need for data is clear to those on the front lines. Kirsten Lo Sicco, MD, associate director of the skin and cancer unit at New York University, reported that her center is already set up to collect data systematically. “At NYU, we are currently working on standardizing laboratory and histopathology work up for COVID-19 patients who present with various skin eruptions.”

The goal, she added, is “to better determine COVID-19 pathophysiology, systemic associations, patient outcomes, and potential therapeutics.”

NYU Langone Health

“Presumably, many of the eruptions seen in the setting of COVID-19 infection are related,” Dr. Lo Sicco explained in an interview. However, skin complications of infection “may overlap with or be a result of other etiologies as well.”

While better testing for COVID-19 and more lesion biopsies will play a critical role in differentiating etiologies, “we must not overcall COVID-19–related skin eruptions and potentially overlook other diagnoses,” Dr. Lo Sicco said.

In recounting some challenges from the NYU experience so far, Dr. Lo Sicco described the difficulty of differentiating COVID-19–related skin eruptions from skin eruptions caused by treatments, such as antibiotics and antivirals, when the presentation is delayed.

“This is where collaboration with our dermatopathologists becomes important. Drug eruptions, viral exanthems, urticarial eruptions, vasculopathy, and vasculitis can all be differentiated on dermpath,” she said.

One early obstacle to the skin biopsies essential for these types of studies was the limited supply of personal protective equipment at many centers, including hospitals in New York. Biopsies could not be safely performed if supplies of masks and gowns were limited.

Recent evidence suggests that some of the more common morphologies, such as purpuric eruptions, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura, are linked to the vasculopathy associated with COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Lo Sicco, but this invites a new set of questions.

One is whether vasculopathies can be prevented with prophylactic anticoagulation. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients are already receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, but Dr. Lo Sicco questioned whether prophylactic anticoagulation might improve prognosis for outpatients, such as those discharged or those never hospitalized. This is a strategy now being investigated.

Ultimately, she agreed with the thrust of the JAMA Dermatology editorial.

“Dermatologists are vital to determine if various morphologies, such as urticarial, vesicular, purpuric, or papulosquamous lesions, have any specific systemic implications or relate to differences in patient outcomes,” she said.

These are exactly the types of issues being actively investigated at her center.

Neither the authors of the case reports nor of the editorial reported any conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCEs: Madigan LM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1438; Diaz-Guimaraens B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741; Sanchez A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1704.

Proprietary templating software to guide the positioning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) generate very different measures for inclination and version, according to a study that compared four programs and reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.

“It is not a question of one software being better than another. They are just different, and they are device specific,” reported Brent B. Wiesel, MD, chief of the shoulder service at the MedStar Georgetown Orthopaedic Institute, Washington.

The variations were substantial and clinically relevant, suggesting that surgeons need to be aware of these differences when switching between the devices, according to Dr. Wiesel. He said that there is no gold standard for positioning total shoulder arthroplasty, which prevents any conclusion about the superiority of one over the other.

In this study, 76 CT scans obtained from shoulders of patients with glenohumeral arthritis were analyzed for native glenoid version and inclination by the ArthrexVIP, Tornier BluePrint, Stryker TrueSight, and ExactechGPS software programs. Dr. Wiesel explained that these are among the most commonly used programs, but there are others.

After extracting the recommended version and inclination measures from each software program, agreement between measures was calculated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The variance across programs was highly significant for both native glenoid version and inclination (P < .001).

Inter-rater reliability of the software outputs analyzed with Krippendorff’s alpha, for which a value of 1.0 signals perfect agreement and a value of 0 signals complete disagreement, reinforced the discord. For the 76 scans, the values for version and inclination were 0.272 and 0.303, respectively. Both are extremely low.

“The suggested threshold for high reliability is a value of 0.8 or greater,” said Dr. Wiesel, who was contacted about these data after the AAOS annual meeting was canceled. “The lowest acceptable limit for reliability is 0.667 or greater.”

There was disagreement across all programs. The only agreement to reach an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was generated by the Tornier BluePrint and Stryker TrueSight programs. These programs modestly agreed on version (0.706 on the Krippendorff’s alpha), but agreement on inclination was below the acceptable threshold.

“In other words, if you take the same scan from the same patient, you will get different angles from these different templating software programs,” Dr. Wiesel said.

There are several messages from these data, according to Dr. Wiesel. In addition to demonstrating the programs generate outputs that do not agree, he suggested that the values provided by the programs should not be considered absolute. Rather, the software values should be interpreted in the context of the individual patient.

“It is easy to get lazy, but it is important to remember that the software is a tool rather than something that will do the procedure for you,” Dr. Wiesel said. He reported that when the software guidance is not consistent with his own experience, he proceeds cautiously.

“On several occasions when the software has provided measures that are not consistent with my own perception, I have not been happy when I went with the software,” he said. “So typically I go with my gut when there is a discrepancy, and the data from this study supports that.”

Because of the difficulty in creating a gold standard for templating when there are multiple variables that influence optimal positioning of components, Dr. Wiesel suggested that “crowd thinking” might eventually determine the values that produce the best results. By crowd thinking, he was referring to Big Data analysis, collating data from a large number of cases performed by a large number of surgeons.

“All of these software programs provide reasonable guidance, but each has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to be aware that they are different,” Dr. Wiesel reported.

There are differences in the templating software, and they should be taken into consideration, according to another expert who has looked at this issue. Senior author of a randomized trial evaluating planning strategies for total shoulder arthroplasty ( J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2019:101;446-57), Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the shoulder center at the Cleveland Clinic, offered a similar perspective on templating.

“I agree that surgeons should be familiar with the differences that exist in templating software,” Dr. Ricchetti said. Basing his remarks on his own experience and reiterating the conclusion of the AAOS study, he added, “the methods that are used to identify the bone anatomy of the shoulder can vary across software programs, potentially resulting in differences in subsequent measures of glenoid pathology, such as version and inclination, that may impact surgical decision making.”

Dr. Wiesel reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wiesel B et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract 212.

Proprietary templating software to guide the positioning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) generate very different measures for inclination and version, according to a study that compared four programs and reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.

“It is not a question of one software being better than another. They are just different, and they are device specific,” reported Brent B. Wiesel, MD, chief of the shoulder service at the MedStar Georgetown Orthopaedic Institute, Washington.

The variations were substantial and clinically relevant, suggesting that surgeons need to be aware of these differences when switching between the devices, according to Dr. Wiesel. He said that there is no gold standard for positioning total shoulder arthroplasty, which prevents any conclusion about the superiority of one over the other.

In this study, 76 CT scans obtained from shoulders of patients with glenohumeral arthritis were analyzed for native glenoid version and inclination by the ArthrexVIP, Tornier BluePrint, Stryker TrueSight, and ExactechGPS software programs. Dr. Wiesel explained that these are among the most commonly used programs, but there are others.

After extracting the recommended version and inclination measures from each software program, agreement between measures was calculated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The variance across programs was highly significant for both native glenoid version and inclination (P < .001).

Inter-rater reliability of the software outputs analyzed with Krippendorff’s alpha, for which a value of 1.0 signals perfect agreement and a value of 0 signals complete disagreement, reinforced the discord. For the 76 scans, the values for version and inclination were 0.272 and 0.303, respectively. Both are extremely low.

“The suggested threshold for high reliability is a value of 0.8 or greater,” said Dr. Wiesel, who was contacted about these data after the AAOS annual meeting was canceled. “The lowest acceptable limit for reliability is 0.667 or greater.”

There was disagreement across all programs. The only agreement to reach an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was generated by the Tornier BluePrint and Stryker TrueSight programs. These programs modestly agreed on version (0.706 on the Krippendorff’s alpha), but agreement on inclination was below the acceptable threshold.

“In other words, if you take the same scan from the same patient, you will get different angles from these different templating software programs,” Dr. Wiesel said.

There are several messages from these data, according to Dr. Wiesel. In addition to demonstrating the programs generate outputs that do not agree, he suggested that the values provided by the programs should not be considered absolute. Rather, the software values should be interpreted in the context of the individual patient.

“It is easy to get lazy, but it is important to remember that the software is a tool rather than something that will do the procedure for you,” Dr. Wiesel said. He reported that when the software guidance is not consistent with his own experience, he proceeds cautiously.

“On several occasions when the software has provided measures that are not consistent with my own perception, I have not been happy when I went with the software,” he said. “So typically I go with my gut when there is a discrepancy, and the data from this study supports that.”

Because of the difficulty in creating a gold standard for templating when there are multiple variables that influence optimal positioning of components, Dr. Wiesel suggested that “crowd thinking” might eventually determine the values that produce the best results. By crowd thinking, he was referring to Big Data analysis, collating data from a large number of cases performed by a large number of surgeons.

“All of these software programs provide reasonable guidance, but each has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to be aware that they are different,” Dr. Wiesel reported.

There are differences in the templating software, and they should be taken into consideration, according to another expert who has looked at this issue. Senior author of a randomized trial evaluating planning strategies for total shoulder arthroplasty ( J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2019:101;446-57), Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the shoulder center at the Cleveland Clinic, offered a similar perspective on templating.

“I agree that surgeons should be familiar with the differences that exist in templating software,” Dr. Ricchetti said. Basing his remarks on his own experience and reiterating the conclusion of the AAOS study, he added, “the methods that are used to identify the bone anatomy of the shoulder can vary across software programs, potentially resulting in differences in subsequent measures of glenoid pathology, such as version and inclination, that may impact surgical decision making.”

Dr. Wiesel reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wiesel B et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract 212.

Proprietary templating software to guide the positioning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) generate very different measures for inclination and version, according to a study that compared four programs and reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.

“It is not a question of one software being better than another. They are just different, and they are device specific,” reported Brent B. Wiesel, MD, chief of the shoulder service at the MedStar Georgetown Orthopaedic Institute, Washington.

The variations were substantial and clinically relevant, suggesting that surgeons need to be aware of these differences when switching between the devices, according to Dr. Wiesel. He said that there is no gold standard for positioning total shoulder arthroplasty, which prevents any conclusion about the superiority of one over the other.

In this study, 76 CT scans obtained from shoulders of patients with glenohumeral arthritis were analyzed for native glenoid version and inclination by the ArthrexVIP, Tornier BluePrint, Stryker TrueSight, and ExactechGPS software programs. Dr. Wiesel explained that these are among the most commonly used programs, but there are others.

After extracting the recommended version and inclination measures from each software program, agreement between measures was calculated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The variance across programs was highly significant for both native glenoid version and inclination (P < .001).

Inter-rater reliability of the software outputs analyzed with Krippendorff’s alpha, for which a value of 1.0 signals perfect agreement and a value of 0 signals complete disagreement, reinforced the discord. For the 76 scans, the values for version and inclination were 0.272 and 0.303, respectively. Both are extremely low.

“The suggested threshold for high reliability is a value of 0.8 or greater,” said Dr. Wiesel, who was contacted about these data after the AAOS annual meeting was canceled. “The lowest acceptable limit for reliability is 0.667 or greater.”

There was disagreement across all programs. The only agreement to reach an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was generated by the Tornier BluePrint and Stryker TrueSight programs. These programs modestly agreed on version (0.706 on the Krippendorff’s alpha), but agreement on inclination was below the acceptable threshold.

“In other words, if you take the same scan from the same patient, you will get different angles from these different templating software programs,” Dr. Wiesel said.

There are several messages from these data, according to Dr. Wiesel. In addition to demonstrating the programs generate outputs that do not agree, he suggested that the values provided by the programs should not be considered absolute. Rather, the software values should be interpreted in the context of the individual patient.

“It is easy to get lazy, but it is important to remember that the software is a tool rather than something that will do the procedure for you,” Dr. Wiesel said. He reported that when the software guidance is not consistent with his own experience, he proceeds cautiously.

“On several occasions when the software has provided measures that are not consistent with my own perception, I have not been happy when I went with the software,” he said. “So typically I go with my gut when there is a discrepancy, and the data from this study supports that.”

Because of the difficulty in creating a gold standard for templating when there are multiple variables that influence optimal positioning of components, Dr. Wiesel suggested that “crowd thinking” might eventually determine the values that produce the best results. By crowd thinking, he was referring to Big Data analysis, collating data from a large number of cases performed by a large number of surgeons.

“All of these software programs provide reasonable guidance, but each has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to be aware that they are different,” Dr. Wiesel reported.

There are differences in the templating software, and they should be taken into consideration, according to another expert who has looked at this issue. Senior author of a randomized trial evaluating planning strategies for total shoulder arthroplasty ( J Bone Joint Surg AM. 2019:101;446-57), Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the shoulder center at the Cleveland Clinic, offered a similar perspective on templating.

“I agree that surgeons should be familiar with the differences that exist in templating software,” Dr. Ricchetti said. Basing his remarks on his own experience and reiterating the conclusion of the AAOS study, he added, “the methods that are used to identify the bone anatomy of the shoulder can vary across software programs, potentially resulting in differences in subsequent measures of glenoid pathology, such as version and inclination, that may impact surgical decision making.”

Dr. Wiesel reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wiesel B et al. AAOS 2020. Abstract 212.

In older patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty for repair of a hip fracture, cemented fixation reduces the risk of aseptic revisions, according to a large retrospective cohort analysis reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.

“These data suggest surgeons should consider cemented over uncemented femoral stem fixation in the absence of contraindications,” reported Kanu M. Okike, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with the Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center, Honolulu.

The finding was drawn from a cohort analysis conducted in the United States. Several studies conducted in Europe and elsewhere, including randomized trials, have also favored cement.

“Cemented fixation is becoming a standard of care for elderly individuals outside of the U.S., but this study was conducted to evaluate the U.S. experience,” explained Dr. Okike in an interview.

Citing 2018 American Joint Replacement Registry data, Dr. Okike reported that more than half of hemiarthroplasties in the United States are still being fixed without cement.

The retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken with the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry, selecting patients age 60 years or older who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture between 2009 and 2017. Of the 12,491 patients, 6,449 (51.6%) included cement fixation, and the remaining were uncemented.

After controlling for confounders, including age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities, the incidence of aseptic revision 1 year after repair was 3.0% in the uncemented group and 1.3% in the cemented group. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of aseptic revision, which was the primary endpoint, was increased by more than 75% (HR 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.19; P < .001).

Of the secondary outcomes evaluated, such as medical complications at 90 days or mortality at 1 year, none were significantly different between the two arms.

A post hoc analysis suggested that a higher risk of periprosthetic fracture explained the higher rates of aseptic revision in the uncemented group, according to Dr. Okike, whose data have now been published (JAMA. 2020;323:1077-84).

Surgeon preference was also evaluated in this study as an instrumental variable. When patients treated by a surgeon with a preference for cemented fixation were compared with those treated by a surgeon with a preference for cementless repair, the relative advantage of cement for the primary outcome was similar (HR, 1.74; P = .02).

These data are consistent with trials outside of the United States. For example, a randomized trial with 160 patients conducted in New Zealand associated cemented fixation with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture (1 vs. 18) and superior Oxford hip scores (J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:577-83). Similarly, a randomized trial of 141 patients conducted in Sweden associated cemented fixation with lower rate of periprosthetic fracture (0 vs. 9) and improved outcomes on several instruments, including the Harris Hip Scale (Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:1475-80).

Cemented fixation generally requires a slightly longer operating time, but it is not otherwise more difficult or more expensive, according to Dr. Okike. He believes these results encourage cemented fixation in older patients without contraindications. This is already specifically recommended in AAOS guidelines for the management of hip fractures in elderly patients.

An orthopedic surgeon who has published frequently on total hip arthroplasty, Emil van Haaren, MD, of Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, confirmed that cemented hemiarthroplasty is considered “the golden standard of care” at his institution. In one study for which he served as the senior author, survival was characterized as excellent in older patients receiving cemented hip arthroplasty that were followed for more than 10 years (J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:194-8).

“We routinely use cemented prosthesis in hip fracture management when an arthroplasty is indicated,” he reported, echoing the contention by Dr. Okike that this approach is dominant in many centers outside of the United States.

Dr. Okike reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Okiki KM et al. JAMA. 2020;323:1077-84.

In older patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty for repair of a hip fracture, cemented fixation reduces the risk of aseptic revisions, according to a large retrospective cohort analysis reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.

“These data suggest surgeons should consider cemented over uncemented femoral stem fixation in the absence of contraindications,” reported Kanu M. Okike, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with the Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center, Honolulu.

The finding was drawn from a cohort analysis conducted in the United States. Several studies conducted in Europe and elsewhere, including randomized trials, have also favored cement.

“Cemented fixation is becoming a standard of care for elderly individuals outside of the U.S., but this study was conducted to evaluate the U.S. experience,” explained Dr. Okike in an interview.

Citing 2018 American Joint Replacement Registry data, Dr. Okike reported that more than half of hemiarthroplasties in the United States are still being fixed without cement.

The retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken with the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry, selecting patients age 60 years or older who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture between 2009 and 2017. Of the 12,491 patients, 6,449 (51.6%) included cement fixation, and the remaining were uncemented.

After controlling for confounders, including age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities, the incidence of aseptic revision 1 year after repair was 3.0% in the uncemented group and 1.3% in the cemented group. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of aseptic revision, which was the primary endpoint, was increased by more than 75% (HR 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.19; P < .001).

Of the secondary outcomes evaluated, such as medical complications at 90 days or mortality at 1 year, none were significantly different between the two arms.

A post hoc analysis suggested that a higher risk of periprosthetic fracture explained the higher rates of aseptic revision in the uncemented group, according to Dr. Okike, whose data have now been published (JAMA. 2020;323:1077-84).

Surgeon preference was also evaluated in this study as an instrumental variable. When patients treated by a surgeon with a preference for cemented fixation were compared with those treated by a surgeon with a preference for cementless repair, the relative advantage of cement for the primary outcome was similar (HR, 1.74; P = .02).

These data are consistent with trials outside of the United States. For example, a randomized trial with 160 patients conducted in New Zealand associated cemented fixation with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture (1 vs. 18) and superior Oxford hip scores (J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:577-83). Similarly, a randomized trial of 141 patients conducted in Sweden associated cemented fixation with lower rate of periprosthetic fracture (0 vs. 9) and improved outcomes on several instruments, including the Harris Hip Scale (Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:1475-80).

Cemented fixation generally requires a slightly longer operating time, but it is not otherwise more difficult or more expensive, according to Dr. Okike. He believes these results encourage cemented fixation in older patients without contraindications. This is already specifically recommended in AAOS guidelines for the management of hip fractures in elderly patients.

An orthopedic surgeon who has published frequently on total hip arthroplasty, Emil van Haaren, MD, of Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, confirmed that cemented hemiarthroplasty is considered “the golden standard of care” at his institution. In one study for which he served as the senior author, survival was characterized as excellent in older patients receiving cemented hip arthroplasty that were followed for more than 10 years (J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:194-8).

“We routinely use cemented prosthesis in hip fracture management when an arthroplasty is indicated,” he reported, echoing the contention by Dr. Okike that this approach is dominant in many centers outside of the United States.

Dr. Okike reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Okiki KM et al. JAMA. 2020;323:1077-84.

In older patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty for repair of a hip fracture, cemented fixation reduces the risk of aseptic revisions, according to a large retrospective cohort analysis reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled due to COVID-19.

“These data suggest surgeons should consider cemented over uncemented femoral stem fixation in the absence of contraindications,” reported Kanu M. Okike, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with the Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center, Honolulu.

The finding was drawn from a cohort analysis conducted in the United States. Several studies conducted in Europe and elsewhere, including randomized trials, have also favored cement.

“Cemented fixation is becoming a standard of care for elderly individuals outside of the U.S., but this study was conducted to evaluate the U.S. experience,” explained Dr. Okike in an interview.

Citing 2018 American Joint Replacement Registry data, Dr. Okike reported that more than half of hemiarthroplasties in the United States are still being fixed without cement.

The retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken with the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry, selecting patients age 60 years or older who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture between 2009 and 2017. Of the 12,491 patients, 6,449 (51.6%) included cement fixation, and the remaining were uncemented.

After controlling for confounders, including age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities, the incidence of aseptic revision 1 year after repair was 3.0% in the uncemented group and 1.3% in the cemented group. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of aseptic revision, which was the primary endpoint, was increased by more than 75% (HR 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.19; P < .001).

Of the secondary outcomes evaluated, such as medical complications at 90 days or mortality at 1 year, none were significantly different between the two arms.

A post hoc analysis suggested that a higher risk of periprosthetic fracture explained the higher rates of aseptic revision in the uncemented group, according to Dr. Okike, whose data have now been published (JAMA. 2020;323:1077-84).

Surgeon preference was also evaluated in this study as an instrumental variable. When patients treated by a surgeon with a preference for cemented fixation were compared with those treated by a surgeon with a preference for cementless repair, the relative advantage of cement for the primary outcome was similar (HR, 1.74; P = .02).

These data are consistent with trials outside of the United States. For example, a randomized trial with 160 patients conducted in New Zealand associated cemented fixation with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture (1 vs. 18) and superior Oxford hip scores (J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:577-83). Similarly, a randomized trial of 141 patients conducted in Sweden associated cemented fixation with lower rate of periprosthetic fracture (0 vs. 9) and improved outcomes on several instruments, including the Harris Hip Scale (Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:1475-80).

Cemented fixation generally requires a slightly longer operating time, but it is not otherwise more difficult or more expensive, according to Dr. Okike. He believes these results encourage cemented fixation in older patients without contraindications. This is already specifically recommended in AAOS guidelines for the management of hip fractures in elderly patients.

An orthopedic surgeon who has published frequently on total hip arthroplasty, Emil van Haaren, MD, of Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, confirmed that cemented hemiarthroplasty is considered “the golden standard of care” at his institution. In one study for which he served as the senior author, survival was characterized as excellent in older patients receiving cemented hip arthroplasty that were followed for more than 10 years (J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:194-8).

“We routinely use cemented prosthesis in hip fracture management when an arthroplasty is indicated,” he reported, echoing the contention by Dr. Okike that this approach is dominant in many centers outside of the United States.

Dr. Okike reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Okiki KM et al. JAMA. 2020;323:1077-84.