Diagnosing psychotic disorders in the emergency department in the context of substance use.

OBJECTIVE: For patients who are actively using a substance and experience psychotic symptoms, determining whether the psychotic symptoms are due to a primary psychotic disorder or are substance induced is challenging, especially in emergency departments, where historical information is limited. This study examined the accuracy and subsequent treatment implications of emergency department diagnoses among substance-using patients who were having their first psychotic episode. METHODS: Emergency department diagnoses for 302 patients were compared with best-estimate longitudinal diagnoses (BELDs) based on research assessments at three time points (baseline, six months, and 12 months). RESULTS: Of the 223 patients whose symptoms were diagnosed in the emergency department as a primary psychotic disorder, one-quarter were determined by the BELD to have substance-induced psychosis or no psychosis. Overall, the diagnostic agreement was only fair (kappa=.32). Patients with an emergency department diagnosis of primary psychosis were significantly more likely than those with an emergency department diagnosis of substance-induced psychosis to be hospitalized, started on antipsychotic medication, and referred to mental health services instead of treatment for substance use (p<.001). Patients given an emergency department diagnosis of primary psychosis who were found by the BELD to have substance-induced psychosis or no psychosis were significantly more likely to be treated for a psychotic disorder rather than for substance-induced psychosis (p<.001) CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in psychiatric emergency departments appear to have a tendency to attribute psychotic symptoms to a primary psychotic disorder rather than to concurrent substance use. Given that the diagnosis has significant implications for future management, it is important to improve diagnostic approaches in the emergency department.

Robotic techniques improve quality of life in patients undergoing atrial septal defect repair.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional, open surgery. Although most studies of robotically assisted cardiac surgery have reported morbidity and mortality, few have addressed outcome measures, such as pain and quality of life, which was the aim of this study. METHODS: Eleven patients with atrial septal defects (ASD), and five patients with patent foramen ovale, underwent repair using the Da Vinci system (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, CA). The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Survey (SF-36), along with two additional questions, were administered to these patients on postoperative day 30, along with a similar number of patients who underwent ASD repair by mini-thoracotomy or sternotomy. Quality of life endpoints included bodily pain, vitality, mental health, general health, physical function, and social function. RESULTS: Robotic patients demonstrated significantly higher scores in 6 of the eight variables (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in intensive care unit or overall hospital stay among the groups (p = NS). Robotic patients returned to work after 40.2 +/- 30.2 days, mini-thoracotomy patients after 45.6 +/- 27.9 days, and sternotomy patients after 51.7 +/- 40.2 days (p = 0.767). There were no significant differences in SF-36 scores between patients who underwent mini-thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Closure of an ASD can be performed safely and effectively via an endoscopic approach. Robotic technology minimized the degree of invasiveness, hastened postoperative recovery, and improved quality of life, although length of hospital stay was unchanged.

Long-term results of cardiac transplantation in patients 65 years of age and older: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is viewed by some transplant centers as a contraindication for heart transplantation secondary to concerns regarding decreased survival. METHODS: Between January 1992 and June 2002, 63 of 881 (7.2%) orthotopic heart transplants were performed in patients above 65 years. These patients were compared to 63 recipients below age 65 who were matched for sex, etiology of heart failure, United Network for Organ Sharing status, and immunosuppression therapy era. RESULTS: Mean age was 67.1 +/- 2.3 years (range, 65.0 to 74.8) for the older group and 48.1 +/- 14.5 years (range, 18.3 to 64.4) for the younger group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or peripheral vascular disease between the groups (p = not significant) although there were more patients with prior myocardial infarctions in the older group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the groups, with 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year actuarial survival of 85.8%, 80.3%, 73.1%, and 49.9% for the older group; and 86.9%, 83.4%, 75.0%, and 57.0% for the younger group (p = 0.597). Postoperative intensive care unit stay and overall hospital stay were similar for the two groups (p = not significant). There was no significant difference between the groups in freedom from infection or rejection at 1, 3, or 5 years after transplant (p = not significant) although the incidence of transplant coronary artery disease was higher in the older group (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate similar short-term and long-term results for elderly and young recipients undergoing cardiac transplantation. This supports proceeding with transplantation in carefully selected elderly patients.