The heart-brain axis involves complex interactions between the cardiovascular and nervous systems via a network of cortical and subcortical structures working with the autonomic nervous system and intracardiac nervous system. Heart-brain interactions may be divided into 2 broad categories: cardiac effects of neurological disease and neurological effects of cardiac disease. The pathogenesis of neurogenic cardiac effects is thought to involve a neurogenic cascade where sudden shifts in autonomic balance lead to an exaggerated catecholamine release. This can occur in acute neurological conditions such as ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and epilepsy. Cardiovascular complications include the stroke-heart syndrome, neurogenic pulmonary edema and cardiomyopathy, Takotsubo syndrome, arrhythmias, and even sudden cardiac death. Certain areas of the brain, such as the insular cortex, play key roles in cardiac autonomic regulation, and disorders affecting these areas have greater effects on the heart. On the other hand, cardiac conditions can also adversely impact the neurological system. Atrial fibrillation and left ventricular thrombus can cause cardioembolic strokes, whereas heart failure and severe aortic stenosis have been linked to the development of cognitive impairment. This review aims to provide a broad overview of key topics in neurocardiology as well as delve into the evidence and pathophysiology behind these conditions.

The heart-brain axis involves complex interactions between the cardiovascular and nervous systems via a network of cortical and subcortical structures working with the autonomic nervous system and intracardiac nervous system. Heart-brain interactions may be divided into 2 broad categories: cardiac effects of neurological disease and neurological effects of cardiac disease. The pathogenesis of neurogenic cardiac effects is thought to involve a neurogenic cascade where sudden shifts in autonomic balance lead to an exaggerated catecholamine release. This can occur in acute neurological conditions such as ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and epilepsy. Cardiovascular complications include the stroke-heart syndrome, neurogenic pulmonary edema and cardiomyopathy, Takotsubo syndrome, arrhythmias, and even sudden cardiac death. Certain areas of the brain, such as the insular cortex, play key roles in cardiac autonomic regulation, and disorders affecting these areas have greater effects on the heart. On the other hand, cardiac conditions can also adversely impact the neurological system. Atrial fibrillation and left ventricular thrombus can cause cardioembolic strokes, whereas heart failure and severe aortic stenosis have been linked to the development of cognitive impairment. This review aims to provide a broad overview of key topics in neurocardiology as well as delve into the evidence and pathophysiology behind these conditions.

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.

Sarcopenia, which is characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, has been well described to be associated with numerous poor postoperative outcomes, such as increased perioperative mortality, postoperative sepsis, prolonged length of stay, increased cost of care, decreased functional outcome, and poorer oncological outcomes in cancer surgery. Multimodal prehabilitation, as a concept that involves boosting and optimizing the preoperative condition of a patient prior to the upcoming stressors of a surgical procedure, has the purported benefits of reversing the effects of sarcopenia, shortening hospitalization, improving the rate of return to bowel activity, reducing the costs of hospitalization, and improving quality of life. This review aims to present the current literature surrounding the concept of sarcopenia, its implications pertaining to colorectal cancer and surgery, a summary of studied multimodal prehabilitation interventions, and potential future advances in the management of sarcopenia.

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 Purpose Tenecteplase is a thrombolytic agent with pharmacological advantages over alteplase and has been shown to be noninferior to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke in randomized trials. However, evidence pertaining to the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase in patients from different ethnic groups is lacking. The aim of this systematic review and metaanalysis was to investigate ethnicity-specific differences in the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase versus alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods: Following an International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- registered protocol (CRD42023475038), three authors conducted a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases for articles comparing the use of tenecteplase with any thrombolytic agent in patients with acute ischemic stroke up to November 20, 2023. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Two independent authors extracted data onto a standardized data collection sheet. A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted in risk ratios (RR). Results: From 34 studies (59,601 participants), the rate of complete recanalization was significantly higher (P<0.01) in Asian (RR: 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30 to 2.80) versus Caucasian patients (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.14). However, Asian patients (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.62) had significantly higher (P=0.01) rates of mortality compared with Caucasian patients (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.22). Caucasian patients were also more likely to attain a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 at follow-up (RR: 1.14, 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.19) compared with Asian (RR: 1.00, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05) patients. There was no significant difference in the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (P=0.20) and any intracranial hemorrhage (P=0.83) between Asian and Caucasian patients. Conclusion Tenecteplase was associated with significantly higher rates of complete recanalization in Asian patients compared with Caucasian patients. However, tenecteplase was associated with higher rates of mortality and lower rates of mRS 0 to 2 in Asian patients compared with Caucasian patients. It may be beneficial to study the variations in response to tenecteplase among patients of different ethnic groups in large prospective cohort studies.

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.