Multimodal Assessment of Body Pain in Orofacial Pain Patients.

OBJECTIVE: . Patients with complaints of orofacial pain (OFP) often have other body pain, yet many do not report these to their providers. Uncontrolled pain at any location may impact the successful management of an OFP complaint. The objective of this study was to determine the number of pain regions throughout the body, and the underreporting of pain, in patients who presented to a tertiary military OFP clinic. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 423 consecutive new patients. Patients were given three assessment opportunities to report their pain on a whole-body pain map: 1) prior to evaluation (Pt1), 2) following an explanatory statement by their provider on the relationship between pain and prognosis (Pt2), and 3) during directed pain inquiry of specific body regions (Pro). The pain map was divided into nine anatomical regions that were assessed for the presence of pain after Pt1, Pt2, and Pro. RESULTS: Initially, 60.5% of patients did not report all pain locations (Pt1). Following the explanatory statement (Pt2), 30.5% still did not report all pain. Following the completion of all assessment methods, the most commonly reported number of pain regions was five (17.0%), and 91.5% of patients reported multiple pain regions. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients had multiple pain complaints outside the chief complaint, yet the majority did not report these until multiple forms of assessment were utilized. These data encourage the use of a pain map, a verbal pain explanation, and directed pain questioning to more accurately capture pain location and facilitate multidisciplinary care.

Impact of modality choice on rates of hospitalization in patients eligible for both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization rates are a relevant consideration when choosing or recommending a dialysis modality. Previous comparisons of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have not been restricted to individuals who were eligible for both therapies. ♢ METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of people 18 years of age and older who were eligible for both PD and HD, and who started outpatient dialysis between 2007 and 2010 in four Canadian dialysis programs. Zero-inflated negative binomial models, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, were used to examine the association between modality choice and rates of hospitalization. ♢ RESULTS: The study enrolled 314 patients. A trend in the HD group toward higher rates of hospitalization, observed in the primary analysis, became significant when modality was treated as a time-varying exposure or when the population was restricted to elective outpatient starts in patients with at least 4 months of pre-dialysis care. Cardiovascular disease, infectious complications, and elective surgery were the most common reasons for hospital admission; only 23% of hospital stays were directly related to complications of dialysis or kidney disease. ♢ CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to promote PD utilization are unlikely to result in increased rates of hospitalization, and efforts to reduce hospital admissions should focus on potentially avoidable causes of cardiovascular disease and infectious complications.

Choosing peritoneal dialysis reduces the risk of invasive access interventions.

BACKGROUND: Patients choosing between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) should be well informed of the risks and benefits of each modality. Invasive access interventions are important outcomes because frequent interventions lower patient's quality of life and consume limited resources. The objective of this study was to compare the risk of access interventions between the two modalities. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-nine incident chronic dialysis patients were prospectively enrolled at four Canadian centers that were eligible for both modalities, received at least 4 months of pre-dialysis care and started dialysis electively as an outpatient. Two hundred and twenty-four (61%) chose PD and 145 (39%) chose HD. Patients were followed for an average of 1.3 years (range 0.07-3.6 years). RESULTS: In the PD group, there were fewer access interventions (2.5 versus 3.1 interventions per patient, adjusted odds ratio of 0.79 for PD versus HD, P = 0.005) and a lower intervention rate (2.3 versus 1.9 per patient-year, adjusted rate ratio of 0.81 for PD versus HD, P = 0.04). PD catheters were less likely to experience primary failure (4.6 versus 32%, P < 0.0001), showed a trend toward lower intervention rates during use (0.8 versus 1.2 per patient-year, P = 0.06), and had equal patency compared to fistulae (1-year patency of 84 versus 88%, P = 0.48). Patients managed exclusively with HD catheters (28% of the HD group) required 1.7 interventions per patient and an intervention rate of 1.9 per patient-year. CONCLUSION: Patients who choose PD require fewer access interventions to maintain dialysis access than patients choosing HD.

Impact of contraindications, barriers to self-care and support on incident peritoneal dialysis utilization.

BACKGROUND: Targets for peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization may be difficult to achieve because many older patients have contraindications to PD or barriers to self-care. The objectives of this study were to determine the impact that contraindications and barriers to self-care have on incident PD use, and to determine whether family support increased PD utilization when home care support is available. METHODS: Consecutive incident dialysis patients were assessed for PD eligibility, offered PD if eligible and followed up for PD use. All patients lived in regions where home care assistance was available. RESULTS: The average patient age was 66 years. One hundred and ten (22%) of the 497 patients had absolute medical or social contraindications to PD. Of the remaining 387 patients who were potentially eligible for PD, 245 (63%) had at least one physical or cognitive barrier to self-care PD. Patients with barriers were older, weighed less and were more likely to be female, start dialysis as an inpatient and have a history of vascular disease, cardiac disease and cancer. Family support was associated with an increase in PD eligibility from 63% to 80% (P = 0.003) and PD choice from 40% to 57% (P = 0.03) in patients with barriers to self-care. Family support increased incidence PD utilization from 23% to 39% among patients with barriers to self-care (P = 0.009). When family support was available, 34% received family-assisted PD, 47% received home care-assisted PD, 12% received both family- and home care-assisted PD, and 7% performed only self-care PD. Incident PD use in an incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population was 30% (147 of the 497 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Contraindications, barriers to self-care and the availability of family support are important drivers of PD utilization in the incident ESRD population even when home assistance is available. These factors should be considered when setting targets for PD.

Un enfoque racional para la selección de desinfectantes y esterilizantes / Rational focussing for the selection of desinfectants and sterilizing substances

El uso de desinfectantes químicos y esterilizantes en la práctica dental, constituyen una parte significativa del control de la infección. Sin embargo, el número creciente de tales agentes en el mercado y las aparentes quejas conflictivas de los fabricantes, crean dificultades en la selección de los productos apropiados para el uso en el consultorio dental. Este artículo brinda una selección de desinfectantes y esterilizantes