RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of TMS on cognition in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease (AD), AD-related dementias, and nondementia conditions with comorbid cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Systematic review, Meta-Analysis. SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2000, to February 9, 2023. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: RCTs, open-label, and case series studies reporting cognitive outcomes following TMS intervention were included. MEASUREMENT: Cognitive and safety outcomes were measured. Cochrane Risk of Bias for RCTs and MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) criteria were used to evaluate study quality. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022326423). RESULTS: The systematic review included 143 studies (n = 5,800 participants) worldwide, encompassing 94 RCTs, 43 open-label prospective, 3 open-label retrospective, and 3 case series. The meta-analysis included 25 RCTs in MCI and AD. Collectively, these studies provide evidence of improved global and specific cognitive measures with TMS across diagnostic groups. Only 2 studies (among 143) reported 4 adverse events of seizures: 3 were deemed TMS unrelated and another resolved with coil repositioning. Meta-analysis showed large effect sizes on global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination (SMD = 0.80 [0.26, 1.33], p = 0.003), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (SMD = 0.85 [0.26, 1.44], p = 0.005), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SMD = -0.96 [-1.32, -0.60], p < 0.001)) in MCI and AD, although with significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The reviewed studies provide favorable evidence of improved cognition with TMS across all groups with cognitive impairment. TMS was safe and well tolerated with infrequent serious adverse events.
RESUMEN
This is an exciting time in Geriatrics, with numerous opportunities in health care for Geriatrics specialists to innovate and lead. Geriatrics specialists should know how to implement innovative care models to lead healthcare changes in their organizations and effectively facilitate change management. We highlight a 10-step framework that Geriatrics specialists can leverage to quickly move their ideas from development to implementation at a system level. This framework adapts concepts from business management to provide a step-by-step guide to move from idea generation to implementation. We provide different practical examples that a Geriatrician can correlate to in their practice, including value proposition and business canvas model. Though small components of the business canvas model may vary based on organization and program/idea-specific needs, the outlined skills will establish Geriatrics specialists as leaders of change, a resource for education, and valued consultants to a health system that is in dire need of direction to improve the quality of care, and health outcomes, for older adults.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient admissions at a U.S. tertiary care hospital occur via the emergency department (ED), or transfer center. We aim to compare the clinical outcomes of patients admitted from the ED to admissions coordinated by the transfer center. METHODS: Admissions to Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN, between July 2019 to June 2021 were identified in this retrospective study and categorized into two cohorts-transfer center and ED. The two cohorts were then matched for age, sex, admitting service, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions between the two cohorts. RESULTS: 73,685 admissions were identified, of which 24,262 (33%) were transfer center admissions. In the matched cohorts (n = 19,093, each), in-hospital mortality (2.4% versus 1.9%), 30-day mortality (5.4% versus 3.9%), 30-day readmission (12.7% versus 7.2%), and LOS (6.4 days versus 5.1 days) were significantly higher ( P < 0.001) among the admissions coordinated by transfer center. A higher palliative care consultation rate (9.4% versus 6.2%, P < 0.001), and a lower proportion of home discharges home (76.2% versus 82.5%, P < 0.001) among transfer center admissions was observed. Similar findings were noted in multivariate analysis, even when adjusting for LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer center admissions had higher in-hospital mortality, LOS, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission compared to ED admissions. This study also highlights new considerations for palliative care consultation before transfer acceptance, especially to avoid futile transfers. Additional studies analyzing factors behind the outcomes of transfer center admissions are required.
Asunto(s)
Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Tiempo de Internación , Transferencia de Pacientes , Centros de Atención Terciaria , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Centros de Atención Terciaria/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Transferencia de Pacientes/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Admisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , AdultoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study began as a single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for severe treatment-refractory agitation in advanced dementia. The aims are to assess agitation reduction using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), evaluate tolerability and safety outcomes, and explore the long-term stability of agitation reduction and global functioning. Due to challenges encountered during implementation, including recruitment obstacles and operational difficulties, the study design was modified to an open-label format and other protocol amendments were implemented. METHODS: Initially, the RCT randomized participants 1:1 to either ECT plus usual care or simulated ECT plus usual care (S-ECT) groups. As patients were enrolled, data were collected from both ECT and simulated ECT (S-ECT) patients. The study now continues in an open-label study design where all patients receive actual ECT, reducing the targeted sample size from 200 to 50 participants. RESULTS: Study is ongoing and open to enrollment. CONCLUSION: The transition of the ECT-AD study design from an RCT to open-label design exemplifies adaptive research methodologies in response to real-world challenges. Data from both the RCT and open-label phases of the study will provide a unique perspective on the role of ECT in managing severe treatment-refractory agitation in dementia, potentially influencing future clinical practices and research approaches.