Women-Focused Cardiovascular Rehabilitation: An International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guideline

Women-focused cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR; phase II) aims to better engage women, and might result in better quality of life than traditional programs. This first clinical practice guideline by the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (ICCPR) provides guidance on how to deliver women-focused programming. The writing panel comprised experts with diverse geographic representation, including multidisciplinary health care providers, a policy-maker, and patient partners. The guideline was developed in accordance with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealTh care (RIGHT). Initial recommendations were on the basis of a meta-analysis. These were circulated to a Delphi panel (comprised of corresponding authors from review articles and of programs delivering women-focused CR identified through ICCPR’s audit; N = 76), who were asked to rate each on a 7-point Likert scale in terms of impact and implementability (higher scores positive). A Web call was convened to achieve consensus; 15 panelists confirmed strength of revised recommendations (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]). The draft underwent external review from CR societies internationally and was posted for public comment. The 14 drafted recommendations related to referral (systematic, encouragement), setting (model choice, privacy, staffing), and delivery (exercise mode, psychosocial, education, self-management empowerment). Nineteen (25.0%) survey responses were received. For all but 1 recommendation, ≥ 75% voted to include; implementability ratings were < 5/7 for 4 recommendations, but only 1 for effect. Ultimately 1 recommendation was excluded, 1 separated into 2 and all revised (2 substantively); 1 recommendation was added. Overall, certainty of evidence for the final recommendations was low to moderate, and strength mostly strong. These recommendations and associated tools can support all programs to feasibly offer some women-focused programming.     

Rationale for a Clinical Trial That Compares Acute Stroke Rehabilitation at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities to Skilled Nursing Facilities: Challenges and Opportunities

In the United States, approximately 400,000 patients with acute stroke are discharged annually to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) or skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Typically, IRFs provide time-intensive therapy for an average of 2-3 weeks, whereas SNFs provide more moderately intensive therapy for 4-5 weeks. The factors that influence discharge to an IRF or SNF are multifactorial and poorly understood. The complexity of these factors in combination with subjective clinical indications contributes to large variations in the use of IRFs and SNFs. This has significant financial implications for health care expenditure, given that stroke rehabilitation at IRFs costs approximately double that at SNFs. To control health care spending without compromising outcomes, the Institute of Medicine has stated that policy reforms that promote more efficient use of IRFs and SNFs are critically needed. A major barrier to the formulation of such policies is the highly variable and low-quality evidence for the comparative effectiveness of IRF- vs SNF-based stroke rehabilitation. The current evidence is limited by the inability of observational data to control for residual confounding, which contributes to substantial uncertainty around any magnitude of benefit for IRF- vs SNF-based care. Furthermore, it is unclear which specific patients would receive the most benefit from each setting. A randomized controlled trial addresses these issues, because random treatment allocation facilitates an equitable distribution of measured and unmeasured confounders. We discuss several measurement, practical, and ethical issues of a trial and provide our rationale for design suggestions that overcome some of these issues.     

Useful histopathologic features for diagnosing focal liver lesions with spindle cell morphology: A clinicopathologic study

BackgroundFocal liver lesions with spindle cell morphology are rare in the daily practice of pathology. The differential diagnosis is broad, including both tumors and tumor-like lesions. Initial radiologic assessment is sometimes inaccurate. Histopathology is needed to arrive at the correct diagnosis. This study analyzed discrepancies between histopathology and radiologic findings of focal liver lesions with spindle cell morphology.MethodsA six-year retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Thailand. All focal liver lesions with spindle cell morphology were retrieved. Clinicopathologic features of these cases were analyzed. The pathological diagnosis was rendered primarily based on routine histopathology, using other ancillary studies as an adjunct.Results287 biopsies and 151 resection specimens with focal liver lesions were identified. In 12 (2.7%) cases, tumors or tumor-like lesions with spindle cell morphology were retrieved. A total of five cases had discrepancies between histopathology and radiologic findings. These lesions encompassed primary liver tumors (EBV-associated smooth muscle tumor and leiomyosarcoma); metastatic tumors (gastrointestinal stromal tumor, small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma); and a tumor-like lesion (endometriosis). Several morphologic findings (i.e., cytologic grades, dense and loose areas, intratumoral lymphocytes, distinct perinuclear vacuoles, and hemosiderin) are important clues to diagnose these spindle cell lesions.ConclusionsPathologists play a critical role in diagnosing focal liver lesions with spindle cell morphology, particularly those with limited clinical data at the initial presentation. A thorough evaluation of histomorphology on routine hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides is essential for correct diagnosis.