Over 50% of patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) experience poor sleep and/or, closely related, psychological stress. Although stress management interventions are generally available, they are typically underutilised in CR, and sleep remains an underaddressed component within CR. This is concerning, as poor sleep and stress not only reinforce each other but are also associated with poorer cardiovascular health and lower quality of life. Therefore, the primary aim of the OPtimising CArdiac REhabilitation by REfining Sleep and STress (RESST) study is to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of adding a behavioural intervention targeted at improving sleep and managing stress during CR (RESST intervention) on sleep and psychological stress. Furthermore, the study aims to explore the (bidirectional) associations between sleep, stress and lifestyle behaviours.

This parallel-arm multicentre randomised controlled trial will include 200 CR patients across 3 major CR centres in the Netherlands who experience poor sleep and/or stress. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to standard CR or standard CR with the RESST intervention. Standard CR is a structured programme combining exercise, lifestyle guidance and risk management. On top of standard CR, the RESST intervention consists of 5 in-person group sessions targeting sleep and stress and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Primary outcomes are accelerometer-assessed and self-reported sleep and perceived stress. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, psychosocial well-being, chronic stress biomarkers (hair cortisol and cortisone), momentary fatigue, momentary stress and physical activity. Linear mixed models will be used to assess changes in outcomes at 3-month (after intervention and/or CR completed) and 6-month follow-up. The momentary data collected with ecological momentary assessment and accelerometry will be analysed using multilevel linear mixed models to explore the (bidirectional) relationship between sleep, stress and other lifestyle components such as physical activity.

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (MEC-2024-0238). The findings will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at academic conferences and professional and patient publications.

NCT06505109.

Phasix mesh is a fully resorbable synthetic mesh for use in clean and contaminated ventral incisional hernia repairs. Long-term absorbable Phasix mesh appears to be a safe and promising device in incisional hernia repair, with low recurrence rates; however, data on long-term complications after surgery, particularly after the resorption period of the mesh, are scarce.

This protocol describes a study of several European registries on the use of a Phasix mesh in incisional hernia repair. The primary endpoint of the study is long-term complications at 2–5 year follow-up after mesh implantation, with secondary endpoints including hernia recurrence and complications during short-term follow-up.

Ethical approval was not required for this protocol as the study is based on anonymised registry data collected with prior patient consent in each registry. Each participating registry has its own ethical approval process, and this study will adhere to those regulations. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

To compare the quality and time efficiency of physician-written summaries with customised large language model (LLM)-generated medical summaries integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) in a non-English clinical environment.

Cross-sectional non-inferiority validation study.

Tertiary academic hospital.

52 physicians from 8 specialties at a large Dutch academic hospital participated, either in writing summaries (n=42) or evaluating them (n=10).

Physician writers wrote summaries of 50 patient records. LLM-generated summaries were created for the same records using an EHR-integrated LLM. An independent, blinded panel of physician evaluators compared physician-written summaries to LLM-generated summaries.

Primary outcome measures were completeness, correctness and conciseness (on a 5-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were preference and trust, and time to generate either the physician-written or LLM-generated summary.

The completeness and correctness of LLM-generated summaries did not differ significantly from physician-written summaries. However, LLM summaries were less concise (3.0 vs 3.5, p=0.001). Overall evaluation scores were similar (3.4 vs 3.3, p=0.373), with 57% of evaluators preferring LLM-generated summaries. Trust in both summary types was comparable, and interobserver variability showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.975). Physicians took an average of 7 min per summary, while LLMs completed the same task in just 15.7 s.

LLM-generated summaries are comparable to physician-written summaries in completeness and correctness, although slightly less concise. With a clear time-saving benefit, LLMs could help reduce clinicians’ administrative burden without compromising summary quality.