Phenotypic and Endotypic Determinants of Atopic Dermatitis Severity From the Atopic Dermatitis Research Network (ADRN) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with a highly variable clinical phenotype. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify historical and clinical features and biomarkers associated with AD severity. METHODS: A US registry of extensively phenotyped AD participants (aged 0.73-80 years) were enrolled at 9 academic centers. Information on family and personal medical history, examination, skin swabs (culture), and serum biomarkers was collected to evaluate their association with AD severity. RESULTS: Participants with AD (N = 2862) whose disease was categorized as mild (11.6%), moderate (58.0%), or severe (30.4%) based on Rajka-Langeland scoring were enrolled. The trend test, when adjusting for gender, race, and age, demonstrated that severity was strongly (P ≤ .04) associated with a personal/family history of allergic disorders, history of alopecia, exposure to passive smoke, ocular herpes infection, skin bacterial and viral infections, and history of arrhythmia. Features observed more frequently (P ≤ .002), as a function of severity, included skin infections (impetigo, human papillomavirus, and molluscum contagiosum virus), Staphylococcus aureus colonization, excoriations, hyperlinear palms, ichthyosis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, ectropion, and wheezing. Serum IgE, allergen and food (≤6 years) Phadiatop, and eosinophilia were strongly linked to severity (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse US AD population, severity was associated with a history of atopic disorders, skin and extracutaneous bacterial and viral infections (by history and physical examination), higher IgE, eosinophilia and allergen sensitization, atopic skin manifestations (ie, excoriation, hyperlinear palms, and ichthyosis), and atopic ocular features (ie, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, and ectropion) as well as asthma findings (ie, wheezing). Data from our prospective registry significantly advance our understanding of AD phenotypes and endotypes, which is critical to achieve optimal management.

Evaluation of a survey for acute care programme directors on the utilisation of point-of-care ultrasound.

PURPOSE: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is ultrasound brought to the patient's bedside and performed in 'real time' by the healthcare provider. The utility of POCUS to facilitate management of the acutely ill patient has been demonstrated for multiple pathologies. However, the integration of ultrasonography and echocardiography training into residency curriculum varies across the acute care specialties. STUDY DESIGN: After an institutional review board approval, anaesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, paediatrics and general surgery programme directors (PDs) were surveyed. The survey consisted of 11 questions evaluating the primary bedside assessment tool for common acute care situations, POCUS topics that the PDs were comfortable practising and topics that the PDs felt were useful for their specialty. Barriers to POCUS use, certification and documentation were also surveyed. RESULTS: Overall, 270 PD surveys were completed. The preferred primary assessment tool for common acute care situations varied with specialty; emergency medicine PDs consistently responded that POCUS was the diagnostic modality of choice (p<0.0001). The majority of the PDs reported lack of educational opportunities as the primary barrier to learning POCUS (64%). Most PDs indicated that POCUS examinations should be documented (95.7%), and 39% reported that departmental certification would be sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate differences in the preferred initial bedside assessment tool between the acute care specialties. Although POCUS is a superior tool for evaluating acute pathologies, disconnect between education and utilisation remains. This study highlights the need to incorporate POCUS into the acute care specialty curriculum.

Remote Ischemic Pre-conditioning in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Prospective Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral injury from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is twofold. The initial hemorrhage causes much of the injury; secondary injury can occur from delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI). Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a mechanism of organ protection in response to transient ischemia within a distant organ. This pilot trial sought to apply RIPC in patients with aSAH to evaluate its effect on secondary cerebral injury and resultant outcomes. METHODS: Patients were randomized to the high-pressure occlusion group (HPO) or the low-pressure occlusion group (LPO). Lower extremity RIPC treatment was initiated within 72 h of symptom onset and every other day for 14 days or until Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge. In HPO, each treatment consisted of 4 five-minute cycles of manual blood pressure cuff inflation with loss of distal pulses. LPO received cuff inflation with lower pressures while preserving distal pulses. Retrospectively matched controls were also analyzed. Efficacy of treatment was measured by total days spent in vasospasm out of study enrollment days, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), cerebral infarction, one and six month modified Rankin score, and mortality. RESULTS: The final analysis included 33 patients with 11 in each group. Patient demographics, aneurysm location, admission airway status, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), modified Rankin score, Hunt and Hess score, modified Fisher Score and aneurysm management were not significantly different between groups. Hospital and ICU LOS was shorter in LPO compared to the control (p = 0·0468 and p = 0·0409, respectively). Total vasospasm days/study enrollment days, cerebral infarction, one and six month modified Rankin score, and mortality were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial did demonstrate feasibility and safety. The shortened LOS in the LPO may implicate a protective role of RIPC and warrants future study.

Improved diagnostic accuracy of pathology with the implementation of a perioperative point-of-care ultrasound service: quality improvement initiative.

INTRODUCTION: The utility of perioperative point-of-care ultrasound (P-POCUS) is rapidly growing. The successful implementation of a comprehensive P-POCUS curriculum, Focused PeriOperative Risk Evaluation Sonography Involving Gastro-abdominal, Hemodynamic, and Trans-thoracic Ultrasound (FORESIGHT), has been demonstrated. This project sought to further evaluate the utility of P-POCUS with the following aims: (1) to assess the ability to train the FORESIGHT curriculum via a free, open-access, online platform; (2) to launch a P-POCUS clinical service as a quality improvement (QI) initiative; (3) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the P-POCUS examinations to formal diagnostic studies; and (4) to compare the P-POCUS diagnostic accuracy with the diagnostic accuracy of traditional assessment (TA). METHODS: This study was launched as a QI project for the implementation of a P-POCUS service. A group of attending and resident anesthesiologists completed P-POCUS training supported by an online curriculum. After training, a P-POCUS service was launched. The P-POCUS service was available for any perioperative event, and specific triggers were also identified. All examinations were documented on a validated datasheet. The diagnostic accuracy of the two index tests, P-POCUS and TA, were compared with formal diagnostic testing. TA was defined as a combination of the anesthesiologist's bedside assessment and physical examination. The primary outcome marker was a comparison in the accuracy of new diagnosis detected by P-POCUS service versus the TA performed by the primary anesthesiologist. RESULTS: A total of 686 P-POCUS examinations were performed with 466 examinations having formal diagnostic studies for comparison. Of these, 92 examinations were detected as having new diagnoses. Performance for detection of a new diagnosis demonstrated a statistically higher sensitivity for the P-POCUS examinations (p<0.0001). Performance comparison of all P-POCUS examinations that were matched to formal diagnostic studies (n=466) also demonstrated a significantly higher sensitivity. These findings were consistent across cardiovascular, pulmonary and abdominal P-POCUS categories (p<0.01). Additionally, multiple pathologies demonstrated complete agreement between the P-POCUS examination and the formal study. CONCLUSION: A P-POCUS service can be developed after training facilitated by an online curriculum. P-POCUS examinations can be performed by anesthesiologists with a high degree of accuracy to formal studies, which is superior to TA.

Feasibility Evaluation of Commercially Available Video Conferencing Devices to Technically Direct Untrained Nonmedical Personnel to Perform a Rapid Trauma Ultrasound Examination.

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a rapidly expanding discipline that has proven to be a valuable modality in the hospital setting. Recent evidence has demonstrated the utility of commercially available video conferencing technologies, namely, FaceTime (Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA, USA) and Google Glass (Google Inc, Mountain View, CA, USA), to allow an expert POCUS examiner to remotely guide a novice medical professional. However, few studies have evaluated the ability to use these teleultrasound technologies to guide a nonmedical novice to perform an acute care POCUS examination for cardiac, pulmonary, and abdominal assessments. Additionally, few studies have shown the ability of a POCUS-trained cardiac anesthesiologist to perform the role of an expert instructor. This study sought to evaluate the ability of a POCUS-trained anesthesiologist to remotely guide a nonmedically trained participant to perform an acute care POCUS examination. Methods: A total of 21 nonmedically trained undergraduate students who had no prior ultrasound experience were recruited to perform a three-part ultrasound examination on a standardized patient with the guidance of a remote expert who was a POCUS-trained cardiac anesthesiologist. The examination included the following acute care POCUS topics: (1) cardiac function via parasternal long/short axis views, (2) pneumothorax assessment via pleural sliding exam via anterior lung views, and (3) abdominal free fluid exam via right upper quadrant abdominal view. Each examiner was given a handout with static images of probe placement and actual ultrasound images for the three views. After a brief 8 min tutorial on the teleultrasound technologies, a connection was established with the expert, and they were guided through the acute care POCUS exam. Each view was deemed to be complete when the expert sonographer was satisfied with the obtained image or if the expert sonographer determined that the image could not be obtained after 5 min. Image quality was scored on a previously validated 0 to 4 grading scale. The entire session was recorded, and the image quality was scored during the exam by the remote expert instructor as well as by a separate POCUS-trained, blinded expert anesthesiologist. Results: A total of 21 subjects completed the study. The average total time for the exam was 8.5 min (standard deviation = 4.6). A comparison between the live expert examiner and the blinded postexam reviewer showed a 100% agreement between image interpretations. A review of the exams rated as three or higher demonstrated that 87% of abdominal, 90% of cardiac, and 95% of pulmonary exams achieved this level of image quality. A satisfaction survey of the novice users demonstrated higher ease of following commands for the cardiac and pulmonary exams compared to the abdominal exam. Conclusions: The results from this pilot study demonstrate that nonmedically trained individuals can be guided to complete a relevant ultrasound examination within a short period. Further evaluation of using telemedicine technologies to promote POCUS should be evaluated.

Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Consumption and Pain Scores in Primary Versus Repeat Cesarean Delivery in Opioid Naïve Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cesarean deliveries represent a large percentage of deliveries worldwide. Patients undergoing repeat cesarean deliveries are known to have increased risks for surgical complications. However, little is known regarding potential differences in pain. We sought to compare postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores in opioid naïve patients undergoing primary versus repeat non-emergent cesarean delivery. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patient inclusion criteria included: having a non-emergent cesarean delivery, receiving a spinal procedure for surgical anesthesia without general anesthesia, and following the same postoperative pain management protocols. Exclusion criteria included: history of opioid tolerance, illicit drug use, or prior, non-obstetric, major abdominal surgery. The primary outcome marker was total morphine equivalents consumed 0-72 h post-procedure compared between the primary versus repeat cesarean delivery groups. Secondary outcome markers were opioid consumption and pain scores in 24-h period increments for the first 72 h postoperatively. RESULTS: 1617 patients were screened. 217 primary and 377 repeat cesarean deliveries met criteria for comparison. Reduced opioid consumption was demonstrated for the total opioid consumption 0-72 h for the repeat cesarean delivery group (median = 35) compared to the primary cesarean delivery group (median = 58), p = 0.0005. When divided into 24-h periods, differences were demonstrated for the 24-48 and 48-72 h periods but not the 0-24 h period. Pain scores did not differ statistically. CONCLUSION: Opioid naïve obstetric patients who undergo non-emergent repeat cesarean delivery demonstrate lower opioid consumption in the postoperative period. Providers should be aware of this potential difference in order to better educate patients and provide adequate pain management. HIGHLIGHTS: The study reviewed differences in opioid consumption between primary and repeat cesarean deliveries. All patients received the same protocol for spinal dosage and pain management. Repeat cesarean deliveries were associated with lower opioid consumption.

A comparison of midazolam and zolpidem as oral premedication in children, a prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety associated with pediatric surgery can be stressful. Midazolam is a well-accepted anxiolytic in this setting. However, there are cases in which this medication is not effective. Zolpidem is a short-acting nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drug that is administered orally and has quick onset of action (~15 minutes), and 2-3 hour duration. AIMS: Based on the theory that impaired perception following oral zolpidem administration would suppress the development of anxiety, we sought to compare zolpidem to midazolam for pediatric preoperative anxiety. METHODS: This prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of oral midazolam and zolpidem for anxiety premedication. Eighty ASA class I-II pediatric patients between 2 and 9 years old, surgery >2 hours, and at least 23 hours postoperative admission were included in the study. Randomization was done with 0.5 mg/kg midazolam or 0.25 mg/kg zolpidem administered orally. The primary outcome measure was between group difference in patient anxiety at the time of separation using the Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale. Secondary outcomes included emergence delirium and mask acceptance at induction. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale scores at separation between midazolam (median/interquartile range = 26.7/23.3-36.6) and zolpidem (median/interquartile range = 30.0/23.3-56.6) groups, difference 0.01 (95% CI -3E-5 , 3E-2 ; P = 0.07). Mask acceptance score was significantly better in the midazolam group. There was no significant difference in emergence delirium scores between groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that zolpidem, as dosed, was similar to midazolam with regard to anxiety scoring, and inferior with regard to mask acceptance scores.

Anesthesiologists as perioperative hospitalists and outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic surgery: a historical prospective, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative care has been identified as an area of wide variability in quality, with conflicting models, and involving multiple specialties. In 2014, the Loma Linda University Departments of Anesthesiology and Urology implemented a perioperative hospitalist service (PHS), consisting of anesthesiology-trained physicians, to co-manage patients for the entirety of their perioperative period. We hypothesized that implementation of this PHS model would result in an improvement in patient recovery. METHODS: As a quality improvement (QI) initiative, the PHS service was formed of selected anesthesiologists who received training on the core competencies for hospitalist medicine. The service was implemented following a co-management agreement to medically manage patients undergoing major urologic procedures (prostatectomy, cystectomy, and nephrectomy). Impact was assessed by comparisons to data from the year prior to PHS service implementation. Data was compared with and without propensity matching. Primary outcome marker was a reduction in length of stay. Secondary outcome markers included complication rate, return of bowel function, number of consultations, reduction in total direct patient costs, and bed days saved. RESULTS: Significant reductions in length of stay (p <  0.05) were demonstrated for all surgical procedures with propensity matching and were demonstrated for cystectomy and nephrectomy cases without. Significant reductions in complication rates and ileus were also observed for all surgical procedures post-PHS implementation. Additionally, reductions in total direct patient costs and frequency of consultations were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists can safely function as perioperative hospitalists, providing appropriate medical management, and significantly improving both patient recovery and throughput.