Rating Dyspnea and Pain: "No" is Not Always "Zero".

Nurses routinely assess pain in hospitalized patients; similar assessment of dyspnea is increasing. Most nurses start with a yes-no question when assessing pain or dyspnea; many record "no" as a zero rating, skipping the rating scale. We tested the hypothesis that recording "no" answers as "zero" fails to detect the symptoms that would have been detected with a rating scale. Nurses asked 60 patients yes-no questions about the presence of dyspnea and pain, then asked patients to rate the symptoms using a 0-10 scale. All "yes" answers were followed by a concordant rating (i.e., greater than zero). More than 25% of "no" answers were followed by a discordant rating (> zero). Documenting "no" as "zero" missed information potentially useful in care planning; patients who rate dyspnea above zero are at greater risk of adverse outcomes. This information can also provide opportunity to start a discussion with patients who may benefit from symptom management.

Controlled Delivery of 80 mg Aerosol Furosemide Does Not Achieve Consistent Dyspnea Relief in Patients.

PURPOSE: Aerosol furosemide may be an option to treat refractory dyspnea, though doses, methods of delivery, and outcomes have been variable. We hypothesized that controlled delivery of high dose aerosol furosemide would reduce variability of dyspnea relief in patients with underlying pulmonary disease. METHODS: Seventeen patients with chronic exertional dyspnea were recruited. Patients rated recently recalled breathing discomfort on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP). They then performed graded exercise using an arm-ergometer. The NRS was completed following each exercise grade, and the MDP was repeated after a pre-defined dyspnea threshold was reached. During separate visits, patients received either aerosol saline or 80 mg of aerosol furosemide in a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treatment, graded exercise to the pre-treatment level was repeated, followed by completion of the NRS and MDP. Treatment effect was defined as the difference between pre- and post-treatment NRS at end exercise, expressed in absolute terms as % Full Scale. "Responders" were defined as those showing treatment effect ≥ 20% of full scale. RESULTS: Final analysis included 15 patients. Neither treatment produced a statistically significant change in NRS and there was no significant difference between treatments (p = 0.45). There were four "responders" and one patient whose dyspnea worsened with furosemide; two patients were responders with saline, of whom one also responded to furosemide. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: High dose controlled delivery aerosol furosemide was not statistically different from saline placebo at reducing exercise-induced dyspnea. However, a clinically meaningful improvement was noted in some patients.

Aerosol furosemide for dyspnea: Controlled delivery does not improve effectiveness.

Aerosolized furosemide has been shown to relieve dyspnea; nevertheless, all published studies have shown great variability in response. This dyspnea relief is thought to result from the stimulation of slowly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors simulating larger tidal volume. We hypothesized that better control over aerosol administration would produce more consistent dyspnea relief; we used a clinical ventilator to control inspiratory flow and tidal volume. Twelve healthy volunteers inhaled furosemide (40mg) or placebo in a double blind, randomized, crossover study. Breathing Discomfort was induced by hypercapnia during constrained ventilation before and after treatment. Both treatments reduced breathing discomfort by 20% full scale. Effectiveness of aerosol furosemide treatment was weakly correlated with larger tidal volume. Response to inhaled furosemide was inversely correlated to furosemide blood level, suggesting that variation among subjects in the fate of deposited drug may determine effectiveness. We conclude that control of aerosol delivery conditions does not improve consistency of treatment effect; we cannot, however, rule out placebo effect.

Aerosol furosemide for dyspnea: High-dose controlled delivery does not improve effectiveness.

Published studies have shown great variability in response when aerosolized furosemide has been tested as a palliative treatment for dyspnea. We hypothesized that a higher furosemide dose with controlled aerosol administration would produce consistent dyspnea relief. We optimized deposition by controlling inspiratory flow (300-500mL/s) and tidal volume (15% predicted vital capacity) while delivering 3.4µm aerosol from either saline or 80mg of furosemide. We induced dyspnea in healthy subjects by varying inspired PCO2 while restricting minute ventilation. Subjects rated "Breathing Discomfort" on a Visual Analog Scale (BDVAS, 100% Full Scale≡intolerable). At the PETCO2 producing 60% BDVAS pre-treatment, furosemide produced a clinically meaningful reduction of BDVAS (i.e., >20% FS) in 5/11 subjects; saline reduced dyspnea in 3/11 subjects; neither treatment worsened dyspnea in any subject. Furosemide and saline treatment effects were not statistically different. There were no significant adverse events. Higher furosemide dose and controlled delivery did not improve consistency of treatment effect compared with prior studies.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Grand Rounds Discussion From the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

In December 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for selected current and former smokers. The Task Force based the recommendation primarily on the results of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). In this trial, patients randomly assigned to LDCT screening for 3 years had lower rates of both lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality (relative risk reduction, 6.7% [95% CI, 1.2% to 13.6%]; absolute risk reduction, 0.46% [CI, 0% to 0.9%]). Clinicians and health systems confront questions and challenges as they begin to implement lung cancer screening. This paper summarizes a conference during which an internist and a radiologist discuss the application of the Task Force recommendation to an individual patient.

Teaching medical students about obesity: a pilot program to address an unmet need through longitudinal relationships with bariatric surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite obesity's relevance and impact, curricula addressing obesity are underrepresented in clinical medical education. A novel pilot program to begin teaching medical students about care of the obese patient was developed and student attitudes toward obesity and bariatric surgery were assessed. METHODS: The authors paired third-year students with obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Students established a longitudinal patient relationship, received faculty mentorship, and kept a reflections journal. An attitude assessment survey was administered before and after third year. Reflections were analyzed for common themes. RESULTS: Baseline student responses differed from those previously reported for practicing physicians on many survey statements, including more strongly agreeing with the relationship between obesity and serious medical conditions (P < .001), the need to educate patients about obesity risks (P < .001), and willingness to recommend bariatric surgery evaluation (P = .004). These differences were maintained after clinical clerkships. Reflection themes included recognition of obesity stereotypes, improved estimation of body mass index, and awareness of physicians' attitudes about obesity. CONCLUSION: Development and assessment of a novel pilot program to teach third-year medical students about obesity and bariatric surgery suggests a potential impact on student attitudes and understanding of obesity and obesity surgery. Students today may have different attitudes toward obesity than those reflected in prior data for physicians in practice, and programs such as this may help maintain positive attitudes.