Objective

To test the hypothesis that factor eight inhibitor bypassing activity (FEIBA) can be used to control bleeding following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation without increasing the 14-day composite thrombotic outcome of pump thrombus, ischemic cerebrovascular accidents, pulmonary embolism, and deep venous thrombosis.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Academic hospital.

Participants

Three hundred nineteen consecutive patients who underwent LVAD implantation (December 1, 2009 to December 30, 2018).

Intervention

FEIBA administered to control perioperative hemorrhage.

Measurements and main results

The 82 patients (25.7%) in the FEIBA cohort had more risk factors for perioperative hemorrhage, such as lower preoperative platelet count (169 ± 66 v 194 ± 68 × 10³/mL, p = 0.004), prior cardiac surgery (36.6% v 21.9%, p = 0.008), and longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (100.3 v 75.2 minutes, p = 0.001) than the 237 controls. After 16.6 units (95% CI: 14.3-18.9) of blood products were given, 992 units (95% CI: 821-1163) of FEIBA were required to control bleeding in the FEIBA cohort. Compared to the controls, there were no differences in the 14-day composite thrombotic outcome (11.0% v 7.6%, p = 0.343) or mortality rate (3.7% v 1.3%, p = 0.179). Multivariate logistical regression identified preoperative international normalized ratio (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.04-1.62) and CPB time (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.20) as risk factors for 14-day thrombotic events, but FEIBA usage was not associated with an increased risk.

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study, the use of FEIBA (∼1,000 units, ∼13 units/kg) to control perioperative hemorrhage following LVAD implantation was not associated with increases in mortality or composite thrombotic outcome.

Vertebral augmentation is among the current standards of care to reduce pain in patients with vertebral fractures (VF), yet a lack of consensus regarding efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty raises questions on what basis clinicians should choose one therapy over another. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) leadership charged this Task Force to address key questions on the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation and other nonpharmacological approaches for the treatment of pain after VF. This report details the findings and recommendations of this Task Force. For patients with acutely painful VF, percutaneous vertebroplasty provides no demonstrable clinically significant benefit over placebo. Results did not differ according to duration of pain. There is also insufficient evidence to support kyphoplasty over nonsurgical management, percutaneous vertebroplasty, vertebral body stenting, or KIVA®. There is limited evidence to determine the risk of incident VF or serious adverse effects (AE) related to either percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. No recommendation can be made about harms, but they cannot be excluded. For patients with painful VF, it is unclear whether spinal bracing improves physical function, disability, or quality of life. Exercise may improve mobility and may reduce pain and fear of falling but does not reduce falls or fractures in individuals with VF. General and intervention-specific research recommendations stress the need to reduce study bias and address methodological flaws in study design and data collection. This includes the need for larger sample sizes, inclusion of a placebo control, more data on serious AE, and more research on nonpharmacologic interventions. Routine use of vertebral augmentation is not supported by current evidence. When it is offered, patients should be fully informed about the evidence. Anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures by 40-70%. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.