RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Health literacy is associated with heart failure (HF) care and outcomes. Online resources offer important educational materials for patients seeking access to heart transplantation but tend to be complex and potentially ineffective for non-English speakers and those with low reading levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the readability of patient-level information posted on United States heart transplant center websites and the availability of non-English resources. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a review of patient-facing information on websites of U.S. heart transplant centers identified through the United Network for Organ Sharing in August 2022. Written English text was extracted and assessed for readability by using the Fry Graph Readability score. Websites were additionally evaluated for non-English language text and translator tools. Standard ANOVA analysis was used to compare readability levels across transplant regions. The median Fry readability level to understand a piece of text for all regions was 15, which is equivalent to a college-junior reading level (range: 7-17, 7th grade to postgraduate level). There was no statistical difference in median Fry readability levels among regions (Pâ¯=â¯0.16). Of the 139 eligible heart transplant center websites, only 56.1% (78/139) had non-English resources available for patients. Regions 5 (75% [15/20]) and 6 (75% [3/4]) had the highest percentage of non-English resources, and region 2 had the lowest (38% [6/16]). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplant center online resources are inadequate, and many do not provide translations of the English language. Additional work is needed to standardize heart-transplant patient information for a diverse U.S.
Assuntos
Letramento em Saúde , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Transplante de Coração , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Compreensão , Insuficiência Cardíaca/cirurgia , Idioma , InternetRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Retroperitoneal and abdominopelvic sarcomas are rare heterogeneous malignancies. The only therapy proven to improve disease-free survival (DFS) is R0/R1 surgical resection. We sought to analyze whether additional factors such as radiation and systemic therapy were associated with DFS and abdominal recurrence-free survival (RFS). METHODS: Retrospective review of adults (≥18) with resectable abdominopelvic and retroperitoneal sarcomas who underwent intent-to-cure surgery at a high-volume tertiary referral center between 1998 and 2015. The main outcome measures were DFS and abdominal RFS. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Median follow-up was 4.8 years (range 0.1-18.9 years). The most common histology was liposarcoma (49%). Systemic therapy was administered to 48% of patients and was not associated with improved outcomes. The neoadjuvant radiotherapy group (11%) had improved adjusted DFS (5.46 years, 95% CI [3.68, 7.24] vs. 3.1 years, 95% CI [2.48, 3.73]) and abdominal RFS (6.14 years, 95% CI [4.38, 7.89] vs. 3.22 years, 95% CI [2.61, 3.84]). The adjuvant radiotherapy group (19%) had no improvement. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients undergoing resection for retroperitoneal or abdominopelvic sarcoma, neoadjuvant radiation improved DFS and abdominal RFS. A follow-up of over three years was needed to appreciate a difference in outcomes.
Assuntos
Lipossarcoma , Neoplasias Retroperitoneais , Sarcoma , Neoplasias de Tecidos Moles , Adulto , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Humanos , Lipossarcoma/patologia , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Neoplasias Retroperitoneais/patologia , Neoplasias Retroperitoneais/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Sarcoma/patologia , Sarcoma/cirurgiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to the spine who underwent stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) through a multidisciplinary spine oncology program are not well described. We sought to describe the clinical course and local control rates at 1 and 2 years for these patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of adult oncologic patients receiving SBRT to the spine through a multidisciplinary spine oncology program at a single institution from 2010 to 2021 was performed. Patients with a pathologic diagnosis of RCC were included. RESULTS: A total of 75 spinal sites were treated in 60 patients. Of the 60 patients, 75.0% were men, and the mean patient age was 59.2 ± 11.3 years. At 1 year after treatment, 6 of the 60 patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 54 patients, 18 were censored by death and 7 treatment sites showed local recurrence, for 37 of 44 treatment sites with local control (87.8%). At 2 years, 1 additional local recurrence had developed, 15 patients were censored by death, and no additional patients had been lost to follow-up, resulting in 28 of 36 treatment sites with local control (83.2%). None of the patients who had undergone repeat SBRT had local recurrence at 1 or 2 years. For those with local recurrence, the average time from treatment to progression was 6.6 ± 6.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, one of the largest reported studies of spine SBRT for metastatic RCC, local control was high at 1 and 2 years. Our findings support the role of coordinated, algorithmic treatment for these patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: As cancer therapies have improved, spinal metastases are increasingly common. Resulting complications have a significant impact on patient's quality of life. Optimal methods of surveillance and avoidance of neurologic deficits are understudied. This study compares the clinical course of patients who initially presented to the emergency department (ED) versus a multidisciplinary spine oncology clinic and who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) secondary to progression/presentation of metastatic spine disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of adult oncologic patients who underwent spinal SBRT at a single hospital from 2010 to 2021. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 498 spinal radiographic treatment sites in 390 patients. Of these patients, 118 (30.3%) presented to the ED. Patients presenting to the ED compared to the clinic had significantly more severe spinal compression (52.5% vs. 11.7%; p < 0.0001), severe pain (28.8% vs. 10.3%; p < 0.0001), weakness (24.5% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.0001), and difficulty walking (24.5% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.0001). Patients who presented to the ED compared to the clinic were significantly more likely to have surgical intervention followed by SBRT (55.4% vs. 15.3%; p < 0.0001) compared to SBRT alone. Patients who presented to the ED compared to the clinic had a significantly quicker interval to distant spine progression (5.1 ± 6.5 vs. 9.1 ± 10.2 months; p = 0.004), systemic progression (5.1 ± 7.2 vs. 9.2 ± 10.7 months; p < 0.0001), and worse overall survival (9.3 ± 10.0 vs. 14.3 ± 13.7 months; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The establishment of multidisciplinary spine oncology clinics is an opportunity to potentially allow for earlier, more data-driven treatment of their spinal metastatic disease.
Assuntos
Radiocirurgia , Neoplasias da Coluna Vertebral , Adulto , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias da Coluna Vertebral/complicações , Qualidade de Vida , Radiocirurgia/métodos , Serviço Hospitalar de EmergênciaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite pharmacological treatments, patients undergoing cardiac surgery experience severe anxiety and pain, which adversely affect outcomes. Previous work examining pediatric and nonsurgical adult patients has documented the effectiveness of inexpensive, nonpharmacological techniques to reduce anxiety and pain as well as health care costs and length of hospitalization. However, the impact of nonpharmacological interventions administered by a dedicated comfort coach has not been evaluated in an adult surgical setting. OBJECTIVE: This trial aims to assess whether nonpharmacological interventions administered by a trained comfort coach affect patient experience, opioid use, and health care utilization compared with usual care in adult cardiac surgery patients. This study has 3 specific aims: assess the effect of a comfort coach on patient experience, measure differences in inpatient and outpatient opioid use and postoperative health care utilization, and qualitatively evaluate the comfort coach intervention. METHODS: To address these aims, we will perform a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 154 adult cardiac surgery patients at Michigan Medicine. Opioid-naive patients undergoing first-time, elective cardiac surgery via sternotomy will be randomized to undergo targeted interventions from a comfort coach (intervention) versus usual care (control). The individualized comfort coach interventions will be administered at 6 points: preoperative outpatient clinic, preoperative care unit on the day of surgery, extubation, chest tube removal, hospital discharge, and 30-day clinic follow-up. To address aim 1, we will examine the effect of a comfort coach on perioperative anxiety, self-reported pain, functional status, and patient satisfaction through validated surveys administered at preoperative outpatient clinic, discharge, 30-day follow-up, and 90-day follow-up. For aim 2, we will record inpatient opioid use and collect postdischarge opioid use and pain-related outcomes through an 11-item questionnaire administered at the 30-day follow-up. Hospital length of stay, readmission, number of days in an extended care facility, emergency room, urgent care, and an unplanned doctor's office visit will be recorded as the primary composite endpoint defined as total days spent at home within the first 30 days after surgery. For aim 3, we will perform semistructured interviews with patients in the intervention arm to understand the comfort coach intervention through a thematic analysis. RESULTS: This trial, funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation in 2019, is presently enrolling patients with anticipated manuscript submissions from our primary aims targeted for the end of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Data generated from this mixed methods study will highlight effective nonpharmacological techniques and support a multidisciplinary approach to perioperative care during the adult cardiac surgery patient experience. This study's findings may serve as the foundation for a subsequent multicenter trial and broader dissemination of these techniques to other types of surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04051021; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04051021. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21350.