Search

Intensive care unit (ICU) admission after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) varies across medical centers. We evaluated the association of postoperative ICU use with perioperative and long-term outcomes after EVAR.The Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2019) was queried for index elective EVARs. Included centers were categorized by percentage of patients with EVARs postoperatively admitted to the ICU; routine ICU (rICU) centers as ≥80% ICU admissions and nonroutine ICU (nrICU) centers as ≤20% ICU admissions. Patients admitted preoperatively or with same day discharge were excluded. Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared between rICU and nrICU centers.Of 45,310 EVARs in the database, 35,617 were performed at rICU or nrICU centers - 5,443 (15.3%) at 71 rICU centers and 30,174 (84.7%) at 200 nrICU centers. Overall, mean age was 73.4 years and 81.6% were male. Postoperative myocardial infarction, pulmonary complications, stroke, leg ischemia, and in-hospital mortality were similar between rICU and nrICU centers (all p0.05). Postoperative length of stay (LOS) was prolonged at rICU centers (mean) (2.2 ± 3.6 vs 2 ± 4.2 days, p0.001). One-year survival was similar between rICU and nrICU centers, respectively, (94.9% vs 95.4%, p = 0.085). When compared with nrICU centers, rICU centers had similar 1-year mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.34, p = 0.076), but were associated with longer postoperative LOS (means ratio 1.1, 95% CI 1.08-1.13, p0.001).Routine ICU use after EVAR was associated with prolonged postoperative LOS, without improved perioperative/long-term morbidity or mortality. Updated care pathways to include postoperative admission to lower acuity care units may reduce costs without compromising care.

Objective Tunneled dialysis catheters (TDCs) are generally used as a temporary means to provide hemodialysis until permanent arteriovenous (AV) access is established. However, some patients may have long-term catheter-based hemodialysis because of the lack of alternatives for other dialysis access. Our objective was to evaluate characteristics of patients with, reasons for, and mortality associated with long-term TDC use. Methods A retrospective single-institution analysis was performed. Long-term TDC use was defined as >180 days without more than a 7-day temporary removal time. Reasons for long-term TDC use and complications were recorded. Summary statistics were performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared mortality between patients with long-term TDC use and a comparison cohort who underwent AV access creation with subsequent TDC removal. Results We identified 50 patients with long-term TDC use from 2013 to 2018. The average age was 63 years, 44% were male, and 76% were African American. Previous TDC use was found in 42% of patients with subsequent removal after alternative access was established. Median TDC duration was 333 days (range, 185-2029 days). The primary reasons for long-term TDC use were failed (occluded) AV access (34%), nonmaturing AV (nonoccluded) access (32%), delayed AV access placement (14%), no AV access options (10%), patient refusal for AV access placement (6%), and medically high risk for AV access placement (4%). In 46% of patients, TDC complications including central venous stenosis (33.4%), TDC-related infections (29.6%), TDC displacement (27.8%), and thrombosis (7.9%) occurred. Overall, 47.6% required a catheter exchange during the prolonged TDC period. The majority (76.4%) had the catheter removed because of established alternative access during follow-up. The long-term TDC group, in relation to the comparator group (n = 201), had fewer male patients (44% vs 61.2%; P = .028) and higher proportion of congestive heart failure (66% vs 40.3%; P = .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in survival at 24 months for the long-term TDC group compared with the comparator group (93.6% vs 92.7%; P = .28). Conclusions Patients with long-term TDCs experienced significant TDC-related morbidity. Whereas permanent access is preferable, some patients may require long-term TDC use because of difficulty in establishing a permanent access, limited access options, and patient preference. There was no difference in survival between the groups.

Kevin J Duffy,Katharyn L Flickinger,Jeffrey T Kristan,Melissa J Repine,Alexandro Gianforcaro, Rebecca B Hasley,Saad Feroz,Jessica M Rupp,Jumana Al-Baghli,Maria L Pacella,Brian P Suffoletto,Clifton W Callaway Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Background: Refining and individualizing treatment of acute pain in the emergency department (ED) is a high priority, given that painful complaints are the most common reasons for ED visits. Few tools exist to objectively measure pain perception in the ED setting. We speculated that variation in perception of fixed painful stimuli would explain individual variation in reported pain and response to treatment among ED patients. Materials and methods: In three studies, we 1) describe performance characteristics of brief quantitative sensory testing (QST) in 50 healthy volunteers, 2) test effects of 10 mg oxycodone versus placebo on QST measures in 18 healthy volunteers, and 3) measure interindividual differences in nociception and treatment responses in 198 ED patients with a painful complaint during ED treatment. QST measures adapted for use in the ED included pressure sensation threshold, pressure pain threshold (PPT), pressure pain response (PPR), and cold pain tolerance (CPT) tests. Results: First, all QST measures had high inter-rater reliability and test–retest reproducibility. Second, 10 mg oxycodone reduced PPR, increased PPT, and prolonged CPT. Third, baseline PPT and PPR revealed hyperalgesia in 31 (16%) ED subjects relative to healthy volunteers. In 173 (88%) ED subjects who completed repeat testing 30 minutes after pain treatment, PPT increased and PPR decreased (Cohen’s dz 0.10–0.19). Verbal pain scores (0–10) for the ED complaint decreased by 2.2 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.9, 2.6) (Cohen’s dz 0.97) but did not covary with the changes in PPT and PPR (r=0.05–0.13). Treatment effects were greatest in ED subjects with a history of treatment for anxiety or depression (Cohen’s dz 0.26–0.43) or with baseline hyperalgesia (Cohen’s dz 0.40–0.88). Conclusion: QST reveals individual differences in perception of fixed painful stimuli in ED patients, including hyperalgesia. Subgroups of ED patients with hyperalgesia and psychiatric history report larger treatment effects on ED pain and QST measures. Keywords: emergency department, quantitative sensory testing, hyperalgesia, opioid, anxiety, depression