Healthcare system barriers impacting the care of Canadians with myalgic encephalomyelitis: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS) is a debilitating, complex, multisystem illness. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the multiple and interconnected barriers to optimal care will help advance strategies and care models to improve quality of life for people living with ME in Canada. OBJECTIVES: To: (1) identify and systematically map the available evidence; (2) investigate the design and conduct of research; (3) identify and categorize key characteristics; and (4) identify and analyse knowledge gaps related to healthcare system barriers for people living with ME in Canada. METHODS: The protocol was preregistered in July 2022. Peer-reviewed and grey literature was searched, and patient partners retrieved additional records. Eligible records were Canadian, included people with ME/CFS and included data or synthesis relevant to healthcare system barriers. RESULTS: In total, 1821 records were identified, 406 were reviewed in full, and 21 were included. Healthcare system barriers arose from an underlying lack of consensus and research on ME and ME care; the impact of long-standing stigma, disbelief, and sexism; inadequate or inconsistent healthcare provider education and training on ME; and the heterogeneity of care coordinated by family physicians. CONCLUSIONS: People living with ME in Canada face significant barriers to care, though this has received relatively limited attention. This synthesis, which points to several areas for future research, can be used as a starting point for researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers who are new to the area or encountering ME more frequently due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mesenteric vein thrombosis: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: The most frequent location of thrombosis development in acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is the superior mesenteric vein. It is an uncommon but potentially fatal condition. Patients with underlying medical conditions that interfere with the Virchow Triad hypercoagulability, stasis, and endothelial injury are more likely to experience it. PRESENTATION: A 37-year-old female reported to our emergency department with a 5-day history of severe abdominal discomfort, vomiting, and constipation, as well as two episodes of bleeding per rectum. The patient had a clean medical history, no HTN, no diabetes, no chronic medication, no history of contraceptive pill use or non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug use, no history of chronic disease or operation. Patient was directly transferred to the intensive care unit for additional evaluation and preoperative stabilization. DISCUSSION: A patient with acute mesenteric venous thrombosis and possible intestinal damage is the case we've presented. Upon presentation patient was unstable, we assessed her condition and transferred to the intensive care unit for stabilization and pre-operative preparation. She didn't respond to conservative management and we had to operate, we highly emphasize how crucial it is for early intervention in these type of conditions. Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is a complicated case due to its nonspecific symptoms, it requires a multidisciplinary team approach between internal medicine and surgical team to plan for the most appropriate treatment strategy suitable for each patient as all options are associated with significant risks. Multiple options are available for the management of mesenteric venous thrombosis. In patients with peritoneal signs to suggestive bowel infarction or perforation or those who failed to progress with conservative management, operative intervention may be necessary. Other options include anticoagulation therapy, local or systemic thrombolysis, interventional or surgical thrombectomy. CONCLUSION: Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is a complex situation that calls for a multidisciplinary team approach between the surgical and internal medicine departments to determine the best course of action for each patient, as there are major risks involved with each alternative. If peritonism is present, it is preferable to assess and resuscitate as soon as possible and to proceed with surgery.

Colorectal Cancer Patients' Reported Frequency, Content, and Satisfaction with Advance Care Planning Discussions.

(1) Background: This observational cohort study describes the frequency, content, and satisfaction with advance care planning (ACP) conversations with healthcare providers (HCPs), as reported by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. (2) Methods: The patients were recruited from two tertiary cancer centers in Alberta, Canada. Using the My Conversations survey with previously validated questions, the patients were asked about specific ACP elements discussed, with which HCPs these elements were discussed, their satisfaction with these conversations, and whether they had a goals of care designation (GCD) order. We surveyed and analyzed data from the following four time points: enrollment, months 1, 2, and 3. (3) Results: In total, 131 patients were recruited. At enrollment, 24% of patients reported discussing at least one ACP topic. From enrollment to month 3, patients reported a high frequency of discussions (80.2% discussed fears, 71.0% discussed prognosis, 54.2% discussed treatment preferences at least once); however, only 44.3% of patients reported discussing what is important to them in considering health care preferences. Patients reported having ACP conversations most often with their oncologists (84.7%) and cancer clinic nurses (61.8%). Patients reported a high level of satisfaction with their ACP conversations, with over 80% of patients reported feeling heard and understood. From enrollment to month 3, there was an increase in the number of patients with a GCD order from 53% to 74%. (4) Conclusions: Patients reported more frequent conversations compared to the literature and clinical documentation. While the satisfaction with these conversations is high, there is room for quality improvement, particularly in eliciting patients' personal goals for their treatment.

Neoadjuvant intra-arterial versus intravenous chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.

ABSTRACT: To investigate the clinical benefits of transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy compared with intravenous chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).From May 2013 to March 2018, 83 patients (50 men and 33 women) with surgically proven CRC were retrospectively included. Before surgery, 62 patients received conventional systemic chemotherapy, and 21 transcatheter arterial chemotherapy. Basic characteristics, disease control rate (DC), adverse reactions, postoperative complications, and toxicity profiles were collected and compared between the 2 groups.The sigmoid colon (43.37%) was the most common primary tumor location, and the least was the transverse colon (6.02%). Most lesions invaded the subserosa or other structures T3-4 (78.31%), and other lesions invaded the muscular layer T1-2 (21. 69%). The overall DC was 80.65% in the intravenous chemotherapy group and 90.48% in the arterial chemotherapy group (P < .05). Adverse events included myelosuppression and gastrointestinal reactions such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal liver function, and neurotoxicity, which were significantly less common in the intra-arterial group than in the intravenous group (P < .05). Postoperative complications included abdominal infection (11.29% vs 14.29%), intestinal obstruction (6.45% vs 4.76%), anastomotic bleeding (1.61% vs 0.00%), and anastomotic fistula (6.45% vs 4.76%) in the intravenous and intra-arterial groups, respectively (P > .05).Preoperative transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy is a safe and effective neoadjuvant chemotherapy measure for CRC with fewer adverse reactions and a higher overall DC.