RESUMO
Background: Variceal hemorrhage treatment includes endoscopy within 12 hours of admission and octreotide therapy for 2-5 days post-endoscopy. Duration of pre-endoscopy octreotide can be prolonged when intervention is delayed. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of extended pre-endoscopy octreotide on rebleeding after endoscopy when comparing short vs long durations of post-endoscopy octreotide. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective cohort evaluating adult cirrhotic patients with esophageal variceal hemorrhage admitted between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2020. Study groups included patients receiving octreotide ≥12 hours prior to endoscopy followed by ≤ 48 (short course) or >48 hours (standard course) after endoscopy. The primary outcome was post-endoscopy rebleeding, defined as hemoglobin decrease of ≥2 g/dL from baseline or the requirement of ≥1 unit of packed red blood cells. Results: Of the 169 patients included, 88 patients received short course octreotide after endoscopy, and 81 patients received standard course octreotide after endoscopy. Twenty-nine (33%) patients in the short course group and 43 (53.1%) in the standard course group experienced the primary endpoint (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.24 - 4.29; P = .008). Conclusion: Extended pre-endoscopy octreotide may be beneficial in preventing rebleeding when intervention is delayed. Further studies are needed to determine the necessary octreotide duration in delayed endoscopy and varying bleeding risk.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of remote programming for cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the cochlear implant performance for patients who had undergone mapping and programming of their cochlear implant via remote connection through the Internet. METHODS: Postoperative Hearing in Noise Test and Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant word scores for 7 patients who had undergone remote mapping and programming of their cochlear implant were compared with the mean scores of 7 patients who had been programmed by the same audiologist over a 12-month period. Times required for remote and direct programming were also compared. The quality of the Internet connection was assessed using standardized measures. Remote programming was performed via a virtual private network with a separate software program used for video and audio linkage. RESULTS: All 7 patients were programmed successfully via remote connectivity. No untoward patient experiences were encountered. No statistically significant differences could be found in comparing postoperative Hearing in Noise Test and Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant word scores for patients who had undergone remote programming versus a similar group of patients who had their cochlear implant programmed directly. Remote programming did not require a significantly longer programming time for the audiologist with these 7 patients. CONCLUSION: Remote programming of a cochlear implant can be performed safely without any deterioration in the quality of the programming. This ability to remotely program cochlear implant patients gives the potential to extend cochlear implantation to underserved areas in the United States and elsewhere.