Complications of Implanted Vagus Nerve Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) has emerged as a promising tool in ischemic stroke rehabilitation. However, there has been no systematic review summarizing its adverse effects, critical information for patients and providers when obtaining informed consent for this novel treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the adverse effects of VNS. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify common complications after VNS therapy. The search was executed in: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE. All prospective, randomized controlled trials using implanted VNS therapy in adult patients were eligible for inclusion. Case studies and studies lacking complete complication reports were excluded. Extracted data included technology name, location of implantation, follow-up duration, purpose of VNS, and adverse event rates. RESULTS: After title-and-abstract screening of 4933 studies, 21 were selected for final inclusion. Across these studies, 1474 patients received VNS implantation. VNS was used as a potential therapy for epilepsy (9), depression (8), anxiety (1), ischemic stroke (1), chronic heart failure (1), and fibromyalgia (1). The 5 most common post-implant adverse events were voice alteration/hoarseness (n=671, 45.5%), paresthesia (n = 233, 15.8%), cough (n = 221, 15.0%), dyspnea (n = 211, 14.3%), and pain (n = 170, 11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Complications from VNS are mild and transient, with reduction in severity and number of adverse events with increasing follow-up time. In prior studies, VNS has served as treatment option in several instances of treatment-resistant conditions, such as epilepsy and psychiatric conditions, and its use in stroke recovery and rehabilitation should continue to be explored.

The consideration of post-exercise impact on SCAT3 scores in athletes immediately following a head injury.

METHODS: Symptoms were assessed immediately following completion of a rugby match (median 60 minutes). Players removed from the match for assessment due to a head hit were classified as head injured. Controls completed match without head hit. RESULTS: 209 players (67 female; 33 ± 13 years) participated with 80 experiencing a head injury. Symptom severity was significantly greater in head injured (26.2 ± 17.6) compared with controls (8.9 ± 11.5, P < 0.001). 21% of control players reporting >16 symptom severity, misclassifying them as suspected concussion. There were no significant sex differences. Factor analysis produced four symptom clusters of which Headache was most discriminatory between the head injured (median = 1.7) and controls (median = 0.0). CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that exercise and contact during a game affect symptom assessment, increasing the likelihood of misclassifying players with suspected concussion. Factor characterization of symptoms associated with head injury using an exercised comparison group provides more useful discrimination. These results highlight the necessity for objective measures to diagnose concussions outside of symptom self-report.

Remote Patient Monitoring for Home Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in New York: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a global public health emergency, overwhelming health systems worldwide and forcing rapid adoption of telemedicine strategies. Introduction: The COVID-19 Precision Recovery Program (PRP) is a remote patient monitoring (RPM) clinical program that was deployed by a New York health system to perform physiologic and symptomatic monitoring for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnoses. Methods: The present cross-sectional descriptive study reports retrospective data collected from the PRP during the COVID-19 crisis in New York. Results: One hundred twelve patients were included; mean (standard deviation) age was 49 (17.6) years and 60.7% were female. Most prevalent reported comorbidities were hypertension (36.3%), hypercholesterolemia (26.5%), and diabetes (17.7%). Less than half (44.6%) had a positive polymerase chain reaction COVID test (PCR-test), 33% had an unknown COVID status, and 17.9% had a negative test result. The most commonly reported symptoms included dyspnea (55.4%) and anxiety (55.4%). Anxiety was ranked as the most severe symptom (9.8%), followed by difficulty concentrating (4.5%). Symptom presentation did not significantly differ based on PCR-test status. Discussion: RPM can be a valuable tool for delivering care to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnoses. Considering similarities in symptom presentation between PCR-test statuses, access to COVID-related clinical care should not be based on PCR-test results. Conclusions: RPM has strong potential to assist in the effective management of suspected COVID-19 patients.