Sophie Paddock

Aims: Sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are recognized for their cardiovascular benefits. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of SGLT2i on heart failure (HF) outcomes in cancer patients and survivors, focusing on HF hospitalization and new HF diagnoses. Methods and results: A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase via Ovid, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to 5 June 2024, focusing on studies involving cancer patients and survivors treated with SGLT2i. The search criterion used was [(SGLT2) OR (Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) OR (canagliflozin) OR (dapagliflozin) OR (empagliflozin) OR (ertugliflozin) AND (cancer)]. The primary outcomes assessed were HF hospitalization and new HF diagnoses. The search yielded 1880 studies, from which 13 studies encompassing 88 273 patients were included. SGLT2i use reduced HF hospitalizations by 51% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.66, I² = 28%, P < 0.01) and new HF diagnoses by 71% (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10–0.87, I² = 71%). Multi-variate meta-regression analysis suggested that among breast cancer populations, studies with ≥50% of patients on anthracyclines exhibited a 99% reduction in HF hospitalization risk compared with similar studies that included <50% of patients on anthracyclines (RR 0.0085, 95% CI: 0.0001–0.2645, P = 0.0081). Conclusion: SGLT2i significantly lower the risk of HF hospitalization and new HF diagnoses among cancer patients and survivors, with particularly pronounced benefits in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. These findings support the need for prospective trials to further investigate the integration of SGLT2i into cancer patient management to enhance cardiovascular outcomes.

Sophie Paddock, Vassilios S Vasisliou, Maciej Dębski; Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation Programs in Cancer Survivors: they Work and can be Cost-effective, Eur

Aims: Cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock. However, there is limited evidence regarding its beneficial impact on mortality. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies reporting the impact of VA-ECMO on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods and results: A comprehensive search of medical databases (Cochrane Register and PubMed) was conducted. Studies that reported mortality outcomes in patients treated with VA-ECMO for infarct-related cardiogenic shock were included. The database search yielded 1194 results, of which 11 studies were included in the systematic review. Four of these studies, with a total of 586 patients, were randomized controlled trials and were included in the meta-analysis. This demonstrated that there was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality with the use of VA-ECMO compared with standard medical therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–1.27]. Meta-analysis of two studies showed that VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 12-month all-cause mortality (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.11–0.86). Qualitative synthesis of the observational studies showed that age, serum creatinine, serum lactate, and successful revascularization are independent predictors of mortality. Conclusion: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation does not improve 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction; however, there may be significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 12 months. Further studies are needed to delineate the potential benefit of VA-ECMO in long-term outcomes. Registration: The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023461740).

Background: A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) after rectal cancer surgery, which can be the result of direct or indirect tumour involvement, has consistently been associated with increased local recurrence and poorer survival. However, little is known of the differential impact of the mode of tumour involvement on outcomes.Methods: 1460 consecutive patients undergoing rectal cancer resection between 2003 and 2018 were retrospectively assessed. Histopathology reports for patients with a positive CRM were reviewed to determine cases of direct (R1‐tumour) or indirect tumour involvement (R1‐other). Disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. The role of the mode of CRM positivity was examined by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.Results: Eighty‐five patients had an R1 resection due to CRM involvement (5.8%). Of those, 69 were due to direct tumour involvement, while 16 were from indirect causes. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that R1‐other was associated with increased OS (hazard ratio 0.40, log‐rank P = 0.006) and DFS (P = 0.043). Multivariate regression confirmed that the mode of CRM positivity was an independent predictor of OS. More interestingly, the patterns of recurrence were different between the two groups, with R1‐tumour leading to significantly more local recurrence (P = 0.04).Conclusions: Our data strongly suggests that direct tumour involvement of the CRM confers worse prognosis after rectal cancer surgery. Importantly, differences in the site and frequency of recurrences make a case for better stratification of patients with a positive CRM to guide treatment decisions.

Background: Effective communication skills are essential in diagnosis and treatment processes and in building the doctor-patient relationship. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in medical students for communication skills development. Broadly, we assessed whether digital education could improve the quality of future doctors’ communication skills. Methods: We performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases and two trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (cRCTs) published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. We also assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment (GRADE). Results: We included 12 studies with 2101 medical students, of which 10 were RCTs and two were cRCTs. The digital education included online modules, virtual patient simulations, and video-assisted oral feedback. The control groups included didactic lectures, oral feedback, standard curriculum, role play, and no intervention as well as less interactive forms of digital education. The overall risk of bias was high, and the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For skills outcome, meta-analysis of three studies comparing digital education to traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills scores between the groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]=–0.19; 95% CI –0.9 to 0.52; I2=86%, N=3 studies [304 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Similarly, a meta-analysis of four studies comparing the effectiveness of blended digital education (ie, online or offline digital education plus traditional learning) and traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills between the groups (SMD=0.15; 95% CI –0.26 to 0.56; I2=86%; N=4 studies [762 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The additional meta-analysis of four studies comparing more interactive and less interactive forms of digital education also showed little or no difference in postintervention skills scores between the two groups (SMD=0.12; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.33; I2=40%; N=4 studies [893 students]; small effect size; moderate-quality evidence). For knowledge outcome, two studies comparing the effectiveness of blended online digital education and traditional learning reported no difference in postintervention knowledge scores between the groups (SMD=0.18; 95% CI: –0.2 to 0.55; I2=61%; N=2 studies [292 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The findings on attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes were limited or mixed. None of the included studies reported adverse outcomes or economic evaluation of the interventions. Conclusions: We found low-quality evidence showing that digital education is as effective as traditional learning in medical students’ communication skills training. Blended digital education seems to be at least as effective as and potentially more effective than traditional learning for communication skills and knowledge. We also found no difference in postintervention skills between more and less interactive forms of digital education. There is a need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of other forms of digital education such as virtual reality, serious gaming, and mobile learning on medical students’ attitude, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes as well as the adverse effects and cost-effectiveness of digital education.

BACKGROUND Effective communication skills are essential in diagnosis and treatment processes and in building the doctor-patient relationship. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in medical students for communication skills development. Broadly, we assessed whether digital education could improve the quality of future doctors’ communication skills. METHODS We performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases and two trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (cRCTs) published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. We also assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment (GRADE). RESULTS We included 12 studies with 2101 medical students, of which 10 were RCTs and two were cRCTs. The digital education included online modules, virtual patient simulations, and video-assisted oral feedback. The control groups included didactic lectures, oral feedback, standard curriculum, role play, and no intervention as well as less interactive forms of digital education. The overall risk of bias was high, and the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For skills outcome, meta-analysis of three studies comparing digital education to traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills scores between the groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]=–0.19; 95% CI –0.9 to 0.52; I2=86%, N=3 studies [304 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Similarly, a meta-analysis of four studies comparing the effectiveness of blended digital education (ie, online or offline digital education plus traditional learning) and traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills between the groups (SMD=0.15; 95% CI –0.26 to 0.56; I2=86%; N=4 studies [762 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The additional meta-analysis of four studies comparing more interactive and less interactive forms of digital education also showed little or no difference in postintervention skills scores between the two groups (SMD=0.12; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.33; I2=40%; N=4 studies [893 students]; small effect size; moderate-quality evidence). For knowledge outcome, two studies comparing the effectiveness of blended online digital education and traditional learning reported no difference in postintervention knowledge scores between the groups (SMD=0.18; 95% CI: –0.2 to 0.55; I2=61%; N=2 studies [292 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The findings on attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes were limited or mixed. None of the included studies reported adverse outcomes or economic evaluation of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS We found low-quality evidence showing that digital education is as effective as traditional learning in medical students’ communication skills training. Blended digital education seems to be at least as effective as and potentially more effective than traditional learning for communication skills and knowledge. We also found no difference in postintervention skills between more and less interactive forms of digital education. There is a need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of other forms of digital education such as virtual reality, serious gaming, and mobile learning on medical students’ attitude, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes as well as the adverse effects and cost-effectiveness of digital education.