RESUMO
Left ventricular assistance devices (LVADs) are one type of life support with the unique quality of allowing recipients to live outside the hospital. This case report explores the decision by a patient and their family to withdraw LVAD therapy in the setting of dementia and consultant team recommendations at odds with one another due to the patient's simultaneous alertness and lack of decisional capacity. It then discusses the guiding principles that led to the withdrawal of LVAD therapy and lessons drawn from the experience by the care team.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The progression of clinical manifestations in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlights the need to account for symptom duration at the time of hospital presentation in decision-making algorithms. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control analysis of 4103 adult patients with COVID-19 and at least 28 days of follow-up who presented to a New York City medical center. Multivariable logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were used to identify predictors of poor outcome. RESULTS: Patients presenting to the hospital earlier in their disease course were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater proportion decompensated (<4 days, 41%; 4-8 days, 31%; >8 days, 26%). The first recorded oxygen delivery method was the most important predictor of decompensation overall in CART analysis. In patients with symptoms for <4, 4-8, and >8 days, requiring at least non-rebreather, age ≥ 63 years, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio ≥ 5.1; requiring at least non-rebreather, IL-6 ≥ 24.7 pg/mL, and D-dimer ≥ 2.4 µg/mL; and IL-6 ≥ 64.3 pg/mL, requiring non-rebreather, and CRP ≥ 152.5 mg/mL in predictive models were independently associated with poor outcome, respectively. CONCLUSION: Symptom duration in tandem with initial clinical and laboratory markers can be used to identify patients with COVID-19 at increased risk for poor outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The United States Food and Drug Administration has proposed regulation to require that cigarettes contain very low nicotine content (VLNC). In contrast, reducing the number of cigarettes per day (CPD) is the most common current method to reduce nicotine. This trial aims to explore whether gradually transitioning to VLNC cigarettes plus nicotine patch or reducing CPD plus nicotine patch is more effective at decreasing nicotine dependence. DESIGN: A two-arm, individually randomized open-label trial. SETTING: Community setting, Vermont, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-eight adult daily smokers (40% female) of ≥ 10 cigarettes/day who were not planning to quit in the next 30 days. INTERVENTIONS: All participants smoked study cigarettes with a nicotine yield similar to most commercial cigarettes ad libitum for 1 week (baseline). Participants then gradually reduced to 70, 35, 15 and 3% of baseline nicotine over 4 weeks by either (a) transitioning to lower nicotine content cigarettes (n = 36) or (b) reducing the number of full nicotine cigarettes (n = 32). All participants received nicotine patches. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in nicotine dependence assessed at baseline and weekly during the intervention with the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale. FINDINGS: Dependence declined over time for both VLNC and CPD participants, but declined more for VLNC (mean decrease in Z-score of 1.0) than CPD (mean decrease in Z-score of 0.5) participants over time (interaction P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning to very low nicotine content cigarettes reduced nicotine dependence over a 4-week period to a greater extent than reducing cigarettes per day when both conditions were aided by nicotine patch.