Search

Cardiac arrest guidelines recommend epinephrine every 3-5 minutes during cardiac arrest resuscitation. However, it is unclear if multiple epinephrine doses are associated with improved outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine if a single-dose epinephrine protocol was associated with improved survival compared to traditional multidose protocols.We conducted a pre-post study across five North Carolina EMS agencies from 11/1/2016 to 10/29/2019. Patients ≥18 years old with attempted resuscitation for non-traumatic prehospital cardiac arrest were included. Data were collected 1 year before and after implementation of the single-dose epinephrine protocol. Prior to implementation, all agencies used a multidose epinephrine protocol. The Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) was used to obtain patient outcomes. Study outcomes were survival to hospital discharge (primary) and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcomes were compared pre- vs. post-implementation using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering within EMS agencies. Adjusted analyses included age, sex, race, shockable vs. non-shockable rhythm, witnessed arrest, automatic external defibrillator availability, EMS response interval, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.During the study period there were 1,690 encounters (899 pre- and 791 post-implementation). The population was 74.7% white, 61.1% male, and had a median age of 65 (IQR 53-76) years. Survival to hospital discharge was similar pre- vs. post-implementation [13.6% (122/899) vs. 15.4% (122/791); OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.89-1.59]. However, ROSC was more common post-implementation [42.3% (380/899) vs. 32.5% (257/791); OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54-0.81]. After adjusting for covariates, the single-dose protocol was associated with similar survival to discharge rates (aOR 0.88, 95%CI 0.77-1.29), but with decreased ROSC rates (aOR 0.58, 95%CI 0.47-0.72).A prehospital single-dose epinephrine protocol was associated with similar survival to hospital discharge, but decreased ROSC rates compared to the traditional multidose epinephrine protocol.

Heart failure is a common, serious condition associated with frequent exacerbations and hospitalizations. Preventable causes of more than 70% of heart failure hospitalizations are attributable to ineffective heart failure self-care, including symptom recognition and interpretation, and delayed symptom reporting and treatment seeking. The social context in which illness symptoms occur is an important aspect of symptom self-management. Self-initiated medical and nonmedical treatments for symptom relief and engaging in lay consultations with persons in social networks for symptom evaluation are common. This article highlights socially delineated aspects of symptom self-management leading to hospitalization, many of which are amenable to nursing intervention.

Background Analysis of operative flow has been shown to improve efficiency in breast microsurgery. Both complex decision-making skills and technical mastery are required to overcome intraoperative challenges encountered during microsurgical reconstruction. Effects of intraoperative complications on operative time have not yet been reported. Methods A retrospective chart review of microsurgical breast reconstructions by three surgeons between 2013–2020 analyzed operative variables and duration. Intraoperative complications were determined from the operative report. Correlations between continuous variables were determined using Spearman correlation coefficients. Nonparametric testing was used when comparing operative duration between groups. Results Operative duration was analyzed for 547 autologous breast reconstruction cases; 210 reconstructions were unilateral and 337 were bilateral. Average operative duration was 471.2 SD 132.2 minutes overall (360.1 SD 100.5 minutes for unilateral cases and 530.5 SD 110.5 minutes for bilateral cases). Operative duration decreased with surgeon experience (r = -0.17, p< .001).Regarding intraoperative complications, difficult donor dissection was correlated with an average operative duration increase of 91.7 minutes (n = 43, 7.9%, p< .001), pedicle injury with an additional 67.7 minutes (n = 19, 3.5%, p = .02) and difficult recipient vessel dissection with an increase of 63.0 minutes (n = 35, 6.4%, p = .003). Complications with anastomosis also showed a statistically significant increase in operative duration, with arterial complications resulting in an increase of 104.3 minutes (n = 41, 7.5%, p< .001) and venous complications resulting in an increase in 78.8 minutes (n = 32, 5.8%, p< .001). Intraoperative thrombus resulted in an increase of 125.5 minutes (n = 20, 3.7%, p< .001), and requiring alternative venous outflow added an average of 193.7 minutes (n = 8, 1.5%, p< .001). Conclusion Intraoperative complications in autologous breast reconstruction significantly increase operative time. The greatest increase in operative time is seen with intraoperative thrombosis or requiring alternative venous outflow. As these complications are rarely encountered in breast microsurgery, opportunities for simulation and case-based practice exist to improve efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment in smoking cessation trials remain sub-optimal. The aim of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness of a modified Zelen’s design in engaging hospitalized patients who smoke in a pragmatic OPT-IN versus OPT-OUT tobacco treatment trial. METHODS: At bedside, clinical staff screened smokers for eligibility, randomized eligible into study arms, and delivered the appropriate treatment approach. Study staff called randomized patients at one-month post-discharge, debriefed patients on the study design, and collected consent to participate. We used frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for quantitative variables to describe the characteristics of those who consented and were enrolled versus those who did not enroll. We also compared the characteristics of participants who consented and those who were reached and explicitly refused consent at one-month follow-up. We used the Cohen’s d measure of effect size to evaluate differences. RESULTS: Of the 1,000 randomized, 741 (74.1%) consented to continue in the study at one-month follow-up. One hundred and twenty-seven (12.7%) refused consent and 132 (13.2%) were unreachable. Cohen’s d effect size differences between those who consented/enrolled (n = 741) and those who were not enrolled (n = 259) were negligible (

Although both high-frequency and burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have shown improved efficacy and patient satisfaction compared with conventional tonic stimulation, there are limited data directly comparing the two. This study aimed to compare both high-frequency 10,000 Hz and burst SCS in the same patients in terms of pain relief and satisfaction in those with axial back pain with or without leg pain.This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at an outpatient pain clinic within an academic medical center. Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups in which they trialed either burst or high-frequency 10,000 Hz SCS over five days, followed by a 24- to 48-hour washout period with no stimulation, and the alternative therapy over the remaining four days. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected immediately before and after both therapy trials. Secondary end points included percentage change in VAS score and patient preference.Of 25 participants, those receiving burst followed by high-frequency SCS (n = 11) had a mean VAS difference of 4.73 after the first trial period and 2.86 after the second. Of those receiving high-frequency followed by burst SCS (n = 14), mean VAS difference after the first trial period was 4.00 and 1.93 after the second trial period. Four participants were withdrawn owing to lead migration. Both therapies showed statistically significant differences in pre- minus post-VAS scores and percent relief. There were no significant differences in carryover or treatment effects between the two groups. There was a statistically significant association between trial sequence and stimulator type implanted because the first stimulator trialed was more likely to be chosen.There were no observed differences in VAS pain score decrease when comparing burst and high-frequency 10,000 Hz SCS programming therapies. Patient preference followed an order effect, favoring the first programming therapy in the trial sequence.

Background Radiation creates significant challenges for breast reconstruction. There is no consensus regarding optimal timing for autologous reconstruction following radiation. This study explores clearly defined, shorter time intervals between completion of radiation and reconstruction than previously reported. Methods A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent autologous reconstruction by five microsurgeons at an academic institution from 2009 to 2020. Cohorts were selected by time elapsed between radiation and autologous reconstruction including 24 months. Analysis compared baseline characteristics, operative details, complications, revision rates, and BREAST-Q scores. Analysis of variance was used for continuous variables and chi-square for discrete variables. Results In total, 462 radiated patients underwent 717 flaps. There were 69 patients at 24 months (26.6%). Age, time from mastectomy, and failure of primary reconstruction were higher at >24 months (p Conclusion Reconstruction can be safely performed within 3 months after radiation without increases in intraoperative, acute, or late reconstructive complications.

Background Perforators are typically found in rows in the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. As methods to assess flap perfusion continue to improve, surgeons may be more likely to select perforators traditionally avoided. The purpose of this article is to describe clinical outcomes based on row and number of perforators to reevaluate flap and abdominal donor site morbidity. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps by four microsurgeons from 2013 to 2020. The row and number of perforators were determined from operative reports. Chi-square and t-test or nonparametric Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon two-sample test were used for discrete and continuous variable, respectively, as applicable. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analyses. Results Of 628 flaps, 305 were medial row (58.7%), 159 were lateral row (30.6%), and 55 had both rows (10.6%). Partial flap loss was higher in both rows (p = 0.003). Fat necrosis was higher with medial (p = 0.03) and both rows (p = 0.01) when compared with lateral using multivariable analysis. Hernia or bulge was higher in lateral row flaps (lateral: 8/157, 5.1%; medial, 5/299, 1.7%; both, 0/55; p = 0.05); however, mesh was more commonly used in both row flaps (p = 0.05). There was no difference in fat necrosis or abdominal morbidity between single and multiple perforators. Conclusion There was no difference in fat necrosis based on the number or row of perforators. The lateral row provides adequate perfusion but may be associated with an elevated risk of hernia or bulge. Patients may benefit from mesh, especially when both rows are dissected.

ImportanceTobacco use causes 7 million deaths per year; most national guidelines require people who use tobacco to opt in to care by affirming they are willing to quit. Use of medications and counseling is low even in advanced economy countries.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of opt-out care vs opt-in care for people who use tobacco.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn Changing the Default (CTD), a Bayesian adaptive population-based randomization trial, eligible patients were randomized into study groups, treated according to group assignment, and debriefed and consented for participation at 1-month follow-up. A total of 1000 adult patients were treated at a tertiary care hospital in Kansas City. Patients were randomized from September 2016 to September 2020; final follow-up was in March 2021.InterventionsAt bedside, counselors screened for eligibility, conducted baseline assessment, randomized patients to study group, and provided opt-out care or opt-in care. Counselors and medical staff provided opt-out patients with inpatient nicotine replacement therapy, prescriptions for postdischarge medications, a 2-week medication starter kit, treatment planning, and 4 outpatient counseling calls. Patients could opt out of any or all elements of care. Opt-in patients willing to quit were offered each element of treatment described previously. Opt-in patients who were unwilling to quit received motivational counseling.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were biochemically verified abstinence and treatment uptake at 1 month after randomization.ResultsOf a total of 1000 eligible adult patients who were randomized, most consented and enrolled (270 [78%] of opt-in patients; 469 [73%] of opt-out patients). Adaptive randomization assigned 345 (64%) to the opt-out group and 645 (36%) to the opt-in group. The mean (SD) age at enrollment was 51.70 (14.56) for opt-out patients and 51.21 (14.80) for opt-out patients. Of 270 opt-in patients, 123 (45.56%) were female, and of 469 opt-out patients, 226 (48.19%) were female. Verified quit rates for the opt-out group vs the opt-in group were 22% vs 16% at month 1 and 19% vs 18% at 6 months. The Bayesian posterior probability that opt-out care was better than opt-in care was 0.97 at 1 month and 0.59 at 6 months. Treatment use for the opt-out group vs the opt-in group was 60% vs 34% for postdischarge cessation medication (bayesian posterior probability of 1.0), and 89% vs 37% for completing at least 1 postdischarge counseling call (bayesian posterior probability of 1.0). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $678.60, representing the cost of each additional quit in the opt-out group.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, opt-out care doubled treatment engagement and increased quit attempts, while enhancing patients’ sense of agency and alliance with practitioners. Stronger and longer treatment could increase cessation.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721082