Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have increased the quality and duration of life for millions of patients. As their utilization continues to grow exponentially, clinicians need to diagnose and manage several device-associated complications that may arise during the CIED life cycle. This primer is tailored for the general internal medicine physician or hospitalist, who will inevitably take care of patients with CIEDs, to provide a contemporary update on the incidence and clinical manifestations of the 4 most common CIED complications, with the latest evidence to guide clinical management and expected outcomes. Specifically, this review focuses on: 1) generator/lead failure, which has decreased to less than 1% per year due to continuous advances in manufacturing and programming and is mostly managed conservatively with close monitoring; 2) CIED infections, which, while also rare at approximately 1% per year, carry a short-term mortality of 10% to 20%, thus requiring immediate diagnosis and often urgent treatment with lead extraction because antibiotic treatment is rarely effective; and 3) lead-related venous obstruction, which has highly variable incidence (5% to 30%) and manifestations, ranging from arm swelling to superior vena cava syndrome. Management options range from anticoagulation to balloon venoplasty, often with unsatisfying results. This review will also focus on 4) lead-related tricuspid regurgitation, which affects 20% to 30% of CIEDs and has become an area of intense interest with the development of percutaneous tricuspid treatments-where evidence is urgently needed to inform the need for lead extraction versus jailing during tricuspid interventions. The progressive adoption of leadless devices may significantly reduce many of these complications. Nonetheless, optimal management requires input from a multidisciplinary team of electrophysiologists and imaging, heart failure, and structural interventional specialists-who should be able to recognize and treat each complication promptly based on a rapidly evolving evidence base.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths for both men and women. Screening for colorectal cancer is an effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality, but uptake remains suboptimal. Several performance measures for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance are currently used in pay-for-performance, public reporting, and/or accountability programs. The American College of Physicians (ACP) embraces performance measurement as a means to improve quality of care. The ACP believes that a performance measure must be methodologically sound and evidence-based to be considered for inclusion in payment, accountability, or reporting programs. These principles are critical given the potential effect to physician administrative work and reputation and reimbursement and to prevent unintended consequences on patient care. The ACP's Performance Measurement Committee (PMC) reviews performance measures using a validated process to recognize high-quality performance measures, address gaps and areas for improvement in performance measures, and help reduce reporting burden. This article aims to present a review of current performance measures for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance to inform physicians, payers, and policymakers in their selection and use of performance measures and make recommendations for measures that could be developed. The PMC appreciates the importance of colorectal cancer screening in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer and supports performance measures based on strong recommendations. The PMC reviewed 5 performance measures for colorectal cancer screening relevant to internal medicine and supports 1 performance measure ("Facility 7-Day Risk-Standardized Hospital Visit Rate after Outpatient Colonoscopy") for use.

There is concern about widespread increases in cancer incidence rates in younger adults.

Given a marked expansion in the work of primary care in recent decades, it is critical to have an accurate understanding of the time involved in managing a primary care panel and the determinants of this time.

Chronic coronary artery disease (CCAD) is a leading cause of death in the United States and many other countries. The defining pathobiology is an imbalance between the metabolic demands of the myocardium and oxygen supply, which most often results from coronary artery atherosclerosis. The classic presenting symptom of CCAD is angina, but clinical presentation varies greatly among patients. Since the last In the Clinic on CCAD (previously termed "stable ischemic heart disease") in 2019, several new medications have been approved to reduce ischemic complications.

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was preferentially recommended over live zoster vaccine (ZVL) starting in 2018.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. Screening mammography, which aims to detect asymptomatic breast cancers at earlier and more intervenable stages, has reduced breast cancer mortality, but not overall mortality, in randomized trials. As of 2024, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years (grade B recommendation). In these rounds, 2 experts, the first a primary care physician and member of the Task Force and the second an epidemiologist and family practitioner, debate this recommendation in the context of Ms. R, a 39-year-old woman. They discuss the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening, the ideal age and frequency at which to conduct screening, and the key points to include when having a conversation with a patient about breast cancer screening.

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Endocrinology: [Formula: see text].

Exposure to the 1918 influenza pandemic may have been associated with preterm birth (<37 weeks). Other outcomes, such as infant size or weight, have rarely been explored. Using 2177 historical birth records from University Maternity Hospital of Lausanne, it was estimated whether in utero exposure to maternal influenza-like illness (ILI) during the 1918 pandemic was associated with pregnancy outcomes and whether associations varied depending on the trimester of ILI during pregnancy or on fetal sex. Generalized linear models and robust linear models were used to analyze the association between ILI and gestational age, stillbirth, and anthropometric measurements, adjusting on covariates. Analyses were stratified by fetal sex. A total of 282 (13%) women developed ILI during pregnancy. Exposure to ILI was associated with lower anthropometric measurements: low birthweight (LBW; <2500 g) (marginally adjusted percentage was 13.3% compared with 6.9% in the unexposed group; difference, 6.4 percentage points [95% CI, 5.5 to 7.2 percentage points]). There was strong evidence that third trimester exposure was associated with worse adverse pregnancy outcomes, including with LBW (difference, 12.8 percentage points [CI, 11.8 to 13.7 percentage points]) and preterm birth rates (difference, 9.4 percentage points [CI, 8.2 to 10.6 percentage points]). Maternal ILI may have triggered premature birth. The magnitude of the declines in anthropometric parameters was higher among male fetuses, and they had a higher stillbirth rate. For instance, males exposed during the third trimester had their birthweight lowered by 228.4 g (CI, -391.0 to -65.8 g) compared with 126.3 g among females [CI, -256.6 to 4.0 g]. Only 41% of infants exposed to first-trimester ILI were males, suggesting a selection against male fetuses through miscarriage. Our findings may not generalize to the entire population of Lausanne, as 34% of births were home births at the time.

GIM/FP/GP: [Formula: see text] Endocrinology: [Formula: see text].