Impact of home parenteral nutrition on family members: A national multi-centre cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is a necessary treatment for patients with chronic, type 3, intestinal failure (IF). HPN often requires lifestyle adaptations, which are likely to affect quality of life (QoL) in both patients and family members. The aim of this study was to identify the level of burden on family members who are involved with HPN care and to understand specific factors that contribute to any burden. METHODS: Patients over the age of 18 and receiving HPN were identified in IF clinics from multiple centres across the U.K. Eligible patients were asked to complete the parenteral nutrition impact questionnaire (PNIQ) to assess their QoL, while family members were asked to complete the burden scale for family caregivers (BSFC). Logistical regression was undertaken giving adjusted odds ratios (aOR). RESULTS: 678 participants completed the survey representing 339 patients with their appointed family member. Mean PNIQ score was 11.53 (S.D. 5.5), representing a moderate impact of HPN on patients' QoL. On the BSFC scale, 23% of family members reported a moderate to very severe subjective burden indicating an increased risk of psychosomatic symptoms. After adjusting for age and gender, predictors of BSFC included: family members self-reported health status using the EuroQol visual analogue scale (aOR 19.91, 95% CI 1.69, 233.99, p = 0.017) and support received by health services (aOR = 5.83, 95% CI = 1.93, 17.56, p = 0.002). Employment status, disease type, number of nights on HPN and length of time on HPN were not associated with BSFC. CONCLUSIONS: Family members with a poor health status or lack of support by health service were more likely to have a moderate to very severe subjective burden. Tailored support from the multi-professional IF team may reduce the burden experienced by family members of people dependent on HPN.

Randomized trial finds that prostate cancer genetic risk score feedback targets prostate-specific antigen screening among at-risk men.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce death due to prostate cancer but leads to the overdiagnosis of many cases of indolent cancer. Targeted use of PSA screening may reduce overdiagnosis. Multimarker genomic testing shows promise for risk assessment and could be used to target PSA screening. METHODS: To test whether counseling based on the family history (FH) and counseling based on a genetic risk score (GRS) plus FH would differentially affect subsequent PSA screening at 3 months (primary outcome), a randomized trial of FH versus GRS plus FH was conducted with 700 whites aged 40 to 49 years without prior PSA screening. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, recall, physician discussion at 3 months, and PSA screening at 3 years. Pictographs versus numeric presentations of genetic risk were also evaluated. RESULTS: At 3 months, no significant differences were observed in the rates of PSA screening between the FH arm (2.1%) and the GRS-FH arm (4.5% with GRS-FH vs. 2.1% with FH: χ2 = 3.13, P = .077); however, PSA screening rates at 3 months significantly increased with given risk in the GRS-FH arm (P = .013). Similar results were observed for discussions with physicians at 3 months and PSA screening at 3 years. Average anxiety levels decreased after the individual cancer risk was provided (P = .0007), with no differences between groups. Visual presentation by pictographs did not significantly alter comprehension or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This is likely the first randomized trial of multimarker genomic testing to report genomic targeting of cancer screening. This study found little evidence of concern about excess anxiety or overuse/underuse of PSA screening when multimarker genetic risks were provided to patients. Cancer 2016;122:3564-3575. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Successful near-term pregnancy outcome after repair of a dissecting thoracic aortic aneurysm at 14 weeks gestation.

PURPOSE: We report the anesthetic management for a scheduled Cesarean section of a 29-yr-old female who previously had a repair of her dissecting thoracic aortic aneurysm during the 14th week of her pregnancy. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 29-yr-old female with a history of hypertension and previously diagnosed aortic dissection secondary to suspected Marfan's syndrome, presented to our institution for the first time after she became pregnant. A transesophageal echocardiogram revealed a dissecting aortic aneurysm greater than 8 cm in diameter beginning distal to the left subclavian artery and extending into the descending thoracic aorta. The patient was counseled in great detail about the risk of rupture with continuing pregnancy. She refused termination and chose elective repair of the aneurysm, with continuation of the pregnancy. Partial repair of the thoracic aneurysm was undertaken when the pregnancy was 13(5/7) weeks by ultrasound dates. She was subsequently maintained on labetolol and hydralazine for blood pressure control. A decision was made to proceed with a Cesarean section at 32 weeks. After placement of a radial artery catheter and two large peripheral iv catheters, she received a of 7 and 7 at one and five minutes was delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic dissection in pregnancy may have catastrophic results. Undoubtedly, it presents unique challenges for anesthetic and obstetrical management. With appropriate care and surgical correction of the dissecting aneurysm early in pregnancy, a successful outcome for the pregnancy was possible.