The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is increasing in many regions of the world, particularly within the context of aging populations in many countries. The Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) sought to explore areas of global HF innovation with the goal of exchanging ideas and best practices internationally. The HFSA Annual Scientific Meeting included roundtable discussions focused on the challenges faced by each of the participating regions and sharing innovative solutions. Themes identified include the lack of high-quality region-specific HF registry data that is required to accurately define patient needs and to facilitate outcome metrics; the tension between providing care that is accessible to the patient vs. concentrating highly-specialized care within tertiary centers; the need to accredit and coordinate HF care across a spectrum of healthcare delivery centers within regions; opportunities to improve the prevention and timely diagnosis of HF to enhance population outcomes, especially in communities facing healthcare disparities; and the evolution of multidisciplinary team-based care, particularly in optimizing access to guideline-directed medical therapies. This article summarizes the major themes that emerged during the roundtable sessions.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Background: Wellness programs can be implemented in a university setting and may include varied elements such as physical activity, occupational balance, and vocal health. However, there is limited information that highlights and synthesizes why and how these programs work. Therefore, this study aimed to understand effective programs on physical activity, occupational balance, and vocal health for university constituents in relation to the implementation contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes (CMO). Methodology: Guided by the Health Belief Model in the context of a realist review design, the researchers conducted an iterative search among seven peer-reviewed electronic databases in the health and education fields using a predetermined set of eligibility criteria. Results: The search identified 6564 records, of which programs from 20 records contributed to data synthesis. Nine CMO statements were created, with physical activity programs accounting for most configurations. Key themes identified were tailored and individualized interventions, medium-term incentivization, lifestyle education programs utilizing information and communications technology, interdisciplinary multi-component programs, use of self-monitoring strategies, social support, and shared experiences among employees and students. Analysis of the mechanisms of these effective university programs revealed processes and structures that were consistent with elements of the Health Belief Model. Conclusion Effective university-based PA programs result from a health-supporting culture among staff and students, utilizing self-based, technological, and social approaches that target and address individual and organizational behaviors in physical activity, occupational balance, and vocal health. This realist review provides practical information that may guide the development of university-based programs and policies targeting these areas of wellness.
Exercise ; Work-Life Balance

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is becoming the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, surgery is deferred for months after completion, which may lead to fibrosis and increased surgical difficulty. The aim of this study was to assess whether TNT (TNT-RAPIDO) is associated with increased difficulty of total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) and upfront surgery. Methods: Twelve laparoscopic videos of low anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer were prospectively collected from January 2020 to October 2021, with 4 videos in each arm. Seven colorectal surgeons assessed the videos independently, graded the difficulty of TME using a visual analog scale and attempted to identify which category the videos belonged to. Results: The median age was 67 years, and 10 patients were male. The median interval to surgery from radiotherapy was 13 weeks in the LCRT group and 24 weeks in the TNT-RAPIDO group. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale for difficulty in TME between the 3 groups (LCRT, 3.2; TNT-RAPIDO, 4.6; upfront, 4.1; P=0.12). A subgroup analysis showed similar difficulty between groups (LCRT 3.2 vs. TNT-RAPIDO 4.6, P=0.05; TNT-RAPIDO 4.6 vs. upfront 4.1, P=0.54). During video assessments, surgeons correctly identified the prior treatment modality in 42% of the cases. TNT-RAPIDO videos had the highest recognition rate (71%), significantly outperforming both LCRT (29%) and upfront surgery (25%, P=0.01). Conclusion TNT does not appear to increase the surgical difficulty of TME.

Background: and PurposeInterhospital transfer is an essential practical component of regional stroke care systems. To establish an effective stroke transfer network in South Korea, an interactive transfer system was constructed, and its workflow metrics were observed. Methods: In March 2019, a direct transfer system between primary stroke hospitals (PSHs) and comprehensive regional stroke centers (CSCs) was established to standardize the clinical pathway of imaging, recanalization therapy, transfer decisions, and exclusive transfer linkage systems in the two types of centers. In an active case, the time metrics from arrival at PSH (“door”) to imaging was measured, and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular treatment (EVT) were used to assess the differences in clinical situations. Results: The direct transfer system was used by 27 patients. They stayed at the PSH for a median duration of 72 min (interquartile range [IQR], 38–114 min), with a median times of 15 and 58 min for imaging and subsequent processing, respectively. The door-to-needle median times of subjects treated with IVT at PSHs (n=5) and CSCs (n=2) were 21 min (IQR, 20.0–22.0 min) and 137.5 min (IQR, 125.3–149.8 min), respectively. EVT was performed on seven subjects (25.9%) at CSCs, which took a median duration of 175 min; 77 min at the PSH, 48 min for transportation, and 50 min at the CSC. Before EVT, bridging IVT at the PSH did not significantly affect the door-to-puncture time (127 min vs. 143.5 min, p=0.86). Conclusions The direct and interactive transfer system is feasible in real-world practice in South Korea and presents merits in reducing the treatment delay by sharing information during transfer.