Publications

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand family preferences around reporting and receiving health-related social needs (HRSN) information by assessment modality during pediatric emergency department (PED) visits.

METHODS

Families were randomized into paper (control), cell phone, or tablet modality groups by their child's exam room. Nurses alerted families to complete a single HRSN assessment during routine workflow. We used logistic regression and McNemar's test to assess discordance in modality preference.

RESULTS

Forty-seven percent of families disclosed at least one HRSN across a total 611 assessments. Disclosure of HRSN was similar by modality. Twenty-three percent of those assigned tablet preferred cell phone ( < 0.001). Two-thirds of families preferred receiving digitally formatted community resources (email or text). There was no difference in preferred timing of HRSN assessment completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment modality did not appear to influence family HRSN disclosure. Families were generally satisfied with all HRSN assessment modalities but demonstrated a particular preference in using personal cell phones over tablets. Digitally formatted community referrals also pose numerous advantages over conventional paper handouts.

INNOVATION

Use of personal cell phones is a novel, streamlined method of HRSN interventions in the clinical setting, performing similar to more conventional modalities, with a preference among families when compared to tablets.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.