The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) 2022 Expert Consensus Document: The use of mechanical circulatory support in lung transplantation

ObjectiveThe use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in lung transplantation has been steadily increasing over the prior decade, with evolving strategies for incorporating support in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative settings. There is significant practice variability in the use of these techniques, however, and relatively limited data to help establish institutional protocols. The objective of the AATS Clinical Practice Standards Committee (CPSC) expert panel was to review the existing literature and establish recommendations about the use of MCS before, during, and after lung transplantation.MethodsThe AATS CPSC assembled an expert panel of 16 lung transplantation physicians who developed a consensus document of recommendations. The panel was broken into subgroups focused on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative support, and each subgroup performed a focused literature review. These subgroups formulated recommendation statements for each subtopic, which were evaluated by the entire group. The statements were then developed via discussion among the panel and refined until consensus was achieved on each statement.ResultsThe expert panel achieved consensus on 36 recommendations for how and when to use MCS in lung transplantation. These recommendations included the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridging strategy in the preoperative setting, a preference for central veno-arterial ECMO over traditional cardiopulmonary bypass during the transplantation procedure, and the benefit of supporting selected patients with MCS postoperatively.ConclusionsAchieving optimal results in lung transplantation requires the use of a wide range of strategies. MCS provides an important mechanism for helping these critically ill patients through the peritransplantation period. Despite the complex nature of the decision making process in the treatment of these patients, the expert panel was able to achieve consensus on 36 recommendations. These recommendations should provide guidance for professionals involved in the care of end-stage lung disease patients considered for transplantation.     

Existing fixation modalities for Jones type fifth metatarsal fracture fixation pose high rates of complications and nonunion

Jones type fifth metatarsal fractures pose a challenge to the foot and ankle surgeon, given documented high nonunion rates as well as high complication rates including hardware prominence, nerve injury, and screw breakage for existing treatment modalities including screw and plantar plate fixation. We call for the design of innovative Jones-fracture specific implants which contour to the natural curve of the fifth metatarsal. Future research should aim to expand upon existing literature for Jones fracture fixation and evaluate efficacy of novel implants which are designed to address unacceptably high complication rates for existing treatment modalities.     

Differences in Evidentiary Requirements Between European Medicines Agency and European Health Technology Assessment of Oncology Drugs—Can Alignment Be Enhanced?

ObjectivesNational health technology assessments (HTAs) across Europe show differences in evidentiary requirements from assessments by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), affecting time to patient access for drugs after marketing authorization. This article analyzes the differences between EMA and HTA bodies’ evidentiary requirements for oncology drugs and provides recommendations on potential further alignment to minimize and optimally manage the remaining differences.MethodsInterviews were performed with representatives and drug assessment experts from EMA and HTA bodies to identify evidentiary requirements for several subdomains and collect recommendations for potentially more efficiently addressing differences. A comparative analysis of acceptability of the evidence by EMA and the HTA bodies and for potential further alignment between both authorities was conducted.ResultsAcceptability of available evidence was higher for EMA than HTA bodies. HTA bodies and EMA were aligned on evidentiary requirements in most cases. The subdomains showing notable differences concerned the acceptance of limitation of the target population and extrapolation of target populations, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, cross-over designs, short trial duration, and clinical relevance of the effect size. Recommendations for reducing or optimally managing differences included joint early dialogues, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of managed entry agreements.ConclusionsDifferences between assessments of EMA and HTA bodies were identified in important areas of evidentiary requirements. Increased alignment between EMA and HTA bodies is suggested and recommendations for realization are discussed.     

Review of a forensic pseudoscience: Identification of criminals from bitemark patterns

The forensic sciences are a combination of laboratory procedures and physical comparisons of objects associated with victims, perpetrators, and crime scenes. The former is largely university-based protocols adopted by crime labs. The latter is predominantly pattern-matching tools originally developed by police examiners or experts deemed by courts to be relevant to forensic matters. These Court accepted experts bring their reasoning and conclusions into the legal arena. This subgroup of forensics has undergone significant scrutiny in regards to its history of exaggerated claims and weak scientific foundations. This paper addresses the rise and fall of bitemark pattern analysis (i.e. “matching” bitemarks in human flesh to human teeth) in the environment of opposing interests and agendas.