Status epilepticus following vaccination in children aged ≤24 months: A five-year retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Status epilepticus is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While vaccine-proximate status epilepticus (VP-SE) has rarely been associated with cases of Dravet syndrome, it is not known whether VP-SE differs clinically from non-vaccine proximate status epilepticus (NVP-SE). METHODS: Medical records of children aged ≤24 months, presenting to one of five Australian tertiary pediatric hospitals with their first episode of status epilepticus from 2013 to 2017 were identified using ICD-coded discharge diagnoses. Vaccination history was obtained from the Australian Immunisation Register. Hospitalization details, subsequent epilepsy diagnosis, and vaccination uptake were compared between VP-SE and NVP-SE cases. RESULTS: Of 245 first status epilepticus hospitalization with immunization records, 35 (14%) were VP-SE and 21 (60%) followed measles-containing vaccines. Vaccine-proximate status epilepticus cases had a median age of 12.5 months [IQR 7.1-14.73], 23 (66%) were in males, 15 (43%) were febrile status epilepticus and 17 (49%) had an infection confirmed. There were no significant differences in hospitalization duration (P = 0.50) or intensive care unit admission (P = 0.42) between children with VP-SE compared to children with NVP-SE. Children with no history of seizures at their first VP-SE had longer hospitalizations, were more likely to require intensive care unit admission, but were less likely to have a subsequent diagnosis of epilepsy than children with previous seizures at their first VP-SE. CONCLUSION: First VP-SE was predominantly associated with a measles-containing vaccine at 12-months of age. Seizure severity was no different between first VP-SE and first NVP-SE. In children with VP-SE, subsequent seizure admissions and epilepsy diagnosis were associated with having seizure prior to their first SE.

Oxygen for end-of-life lung cancer care: managing dyspnea and hypoxemia.

Oxygen is commonly prescribed for lung cancer patients with advancing disease. Indications include hypoxemia and dyspnea. Reversal of hypoxemia in some cases will alleviate dyspnea. Oxygen is sometimes prescribed for non-hypoxemic patients to relieve dyspnea. While some patients may derive symptomatic benefit, recent studies demonstrate that compressed room air is just as effective. This raises the question as to whether to continue their oxygen. The most efficacious treatment for dyspnea is pharmacotherapy-particularly opioids. Adjunctive therapies include pursed lips breathing and a fan blowing toward the patient. Some patients may come to require high-flow oxygen. High-flow delivery devices include masks, high-flow nasal oxygen and reservoir cannulas. Each device has advantages and drawbacks. Eventually, it may be impossible or impractical to maintain a SpO2 > 90%. The overall goal in these patients is comfort rather than a target SpO2. It may eventually be advisable to remove continuous oximetry and transition focus to pharmacological management to achieve patient comfort.

Severe exercise-induced hypoxemia.

Exercise training is an essential component of pulmonary rehabilitation and is associated with improved function and other important outcomes in persons with chronic lung disease. A subset of pulmonary rehabilitation patients experience hypoxemia that may occur or worsen with exercise. For the purpose of this review, severe exercise-induced hypoxemia is defined as an S(pO(2)) of < 89% during exercise, despite use of supplemental oxygen delivered at up to 6 L/min. There is a paucity of evidence and clinical guidelines that address assessment and management of this important manifestation of chronic lung disease. This review presents background of this topic and suggests strategies for assessment, management, and safety measures for patients with severe exercise-induced hypoxemia.

All in the family: resources and referrals for alcoholism.

PURPOSE: To emphasize the family as the unit of treatment when one member has alcoholism, discuss the impact of alcoholism on families, and identify resources and referrals available for primary care nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist the patient and family in improving recovery outcomes and family function. DATA SOURCES: Extensive review of current research, literature, and Internet-based resources, supplemented and illustrated with a case study. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol dependency flourishes within the social context of the family system and is one of the leading causes of family dysfunction. Understanding the impact that alcoholism has on the family system and being familiar with resources and referrals are critical facets of the overall management of treatment for the patient and family. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients often seek health care in a primary care clinic for treatment of medical problems related to alcohol use or abuse, and the primary care NP is frequently the initial point of contact. It is imperative that the family be recognized as the unit of treatment and be included in the treatment plan. As the first line of defense, primary care NPs play a critical role in making appropriate referrals for management of family alcoholism. Helping families make changes leads to improved functioning and recovery outcomes for patients with alcoholism as well as to improved family function.