Evaluation of Efficacy, Efficiency, and Cell Viability of a Novel Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Graft Preparation Device, DescePrep, in Nondiabetic and Diabetic Human Donor Corneas.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of a Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) graft preparation device, DescePrep, through measurement of graft viability, yield, and preparation time in both healthy and diabetic (high-risk) donor eyes. METHODS: Twenty nondiabetic and 10 diabetic donor corneas were processed using DescePrep, which standardizes the liquid bubble technique. Corneas were stained with trypan blue and then processed. Cell counts through specular microscopy, optical coherence tomography imaging, and slit-lamp analysis were used for the evaluation of graft separation and viability in 5 nondiabetic corneas. The remaining 25 corneas (15 nondiabetic and 10 diabetic) were evaluated for preparation success rate and processing time. Ten corneas (5 nondiabetic and 5 diabetic) were randomly selected for further evaluation of global cell loss through staining. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of corneas (29 of 30) were prepared successfully with DescePrep. The average preparation time was 2.83 ± 1.8 minutes. There was no significant difference in the time of preparation between the nondiabetic and diabetic groups (P = 0.077). The overall average cell death after processing was 7.9% ± 3.7% for all corneas. There was no significant difference in cell viability between diabetic and nondiabetic tissues after DescePrep processing (P = 0.769). CONCLUSIONS: DescePrep is a new DMEK preparation technique that can process both nondiabetic and diabetic donor corneas at high yields in minutes. High-yield preparation of diabetic corneas may offer eye banks access to a larger donor pool, which is important because the demand for DMEK grafts continues to rise worldwide.

Accuracy of the Surprise Question on an Inpatient Oncology Service: A Multidisciplinary Perspective.

The surprise question (SQ), "Would you be surprised if your patient died within a year?", has been studied in the cancer population as a prognostic prompt. Studies have almost exclusively directed the SQ to physicians, whereas perspectives of nurses remain underevaluated. We asked the SQ for patients admitted to an inpatient medical oncology service to medical oncology, palliative care, and hospital medicine teams and bedside nurses. We performed a 1-year retrospective chart review to identify how concordant various provider types were in their prognostic estimations and identified the missed opportunity rate (MOR) defined as the number of patients who died within a particular time frame but who the providers had predicted would be alive and may not have had a palliative approach. Oncologists had higher MORs for the 6-month and 1-year SQ when compared with hospital medicine providers. Bedside nurses were least concordant in their estimations of prognosis and had higher MORs for all time frames of the SQ. Missed opportunities might have significant implications for the end-of-life care for cancer patients, and continued research is needed to understand what influences provider prognostication and how this impacts palliative care utilization for patients with life-limiting disease.

Usefulness of the Surprise Question on an Inpatient Oncology Service.

BACKGROUND: Prognostication of survival in patients with advanced cancer has been challenging and contributes to poor illness understanding. Prognostic disagreement occurs even among providers and is a less studied phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: We introduced the surprise question (SQ), "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 1 year, 6 months, and 1 month?," at multidisciplinary rounds to increase palliative care referrals through the introduction of this prognostic prompt. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: This quality improvement project took place from March 2016 to May 2016 on the medical oncology service at a tertiary academic medical center. The question was asked 3 times a week at multidisciplinary rounds which are attended by the hospital medicine provider, palliative care provider, and consulting oncologist. Primary oncologists and bedside nurses were also asked the SQ. MEASUREMENTS: Referral rates to outpatient palliative care clinic, community-based palliative care clinic, inpatient palliative care consults, and hospice 3 months prior to, during, and 5 months postintervention. RESULTS: Regular discussion of prognosis of patients with cancer in an inpatient medical setting did not increase referrals to inpatient or outpatient palliative care or hospice. Increased clinical experience impacted hospital medicine providers and bedside nurses' estimation of prognosis differently than oncology providers. Medical oncologists were significantly more optimistic than hospital medicine providers.