RESUMEN
Pain remains an undertreated complication of cancer, with poor pain control decreasing patients' quality of life. Traditionally, patients presenting to an emergency department with pain have only had two dispositions available to them: hospitalization or discharge. A third emerging healthcare environment, the emergency department observation unit (EDOU), affords patients access to a hospital's resources without hospitalization. To define the role of an EDOU in the management of cancer pain, we conducted a retrospective study analyzing patients placed in an EDOU with uncontrolled cancer pain for one year. Patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics and predictors of disposition from the EDOU and were identified with univariate and multivariate analyses. Most patients were discharged home, and discharged patients had low 72-hour revisit and 30-day mortality rates. Significant predictors of hospitalization were initial EDOU pain score (odds ratio (OR) = 1.12; 95% CI 1.06−1.19; p < 0.001) and supportive care (OR = 2.04; 95% CI 1.37−3.04; p < 0.001) or pain service (OR = 2.67; 95% CI 1.63−4.40; p < 0.001) consultations. We concluded that an EDOU appears to be the appropriate venue to care for a subsegment of patients presenting to an emergency department with cancer pain, with patients receiving safe care as well as appropriate consultation and admission when indicated.
RESUMEN
Thromboembolism is a major cause of death in patients who suffer from COVID-19. Studies examining the effects of aspirin (ASA) on mortality relating to this phenomenon have showed conflicting results with varying degrees and certainties of evidence. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of fourteen studies encompassing 164,539 COVID-19 patients, which showed a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality associated with ASA use in eight studies that reported risk ratios (RR 0.90; 95 % CI 0.82-0.98; I2 = 27.33 %, P = 0.01), six studies that reported hazard ratios (HR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.41-0.76, P ≤ 0.01; I2 = 85.92 %) and pooled effect size (0.71; 95 % CI 0.59-0.85, P = 0.00, I2 = 91.51 %). The objective of this study is to report the association between low dose ASA and a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is clinically proven to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, many eligible patients do not enroll in treatment. Furthermore, many enrolled patients do not complete their full course of treatment. This is greatly influenced by socioeconomic factors but is also because of patients' lack of understanding of the importance of their care and a lack of motivation to maintain attendance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the potential benefits of virtual reality (VR) walking trails within CR treatment, specifically with regard to patient knowledge retention, satisfaction with treatment, and the overall attendance of treatment sessions. METHODS: New CR patients were enrolled and randomized on a rolling basis to either the control group or intervention group. Intervention patients completed their time on the treadmill with VR walking trails, which included audio-recorded education, whereas control patients completed the standard of care therapy. Both groups were assisted by nursing staff for all treatment sessions. Primary outcomes were determined by assessing 6-minute walk test improvement. In addition, secondary outcomes of patients' cardiac knowledge and satisfaction were assessed via a computer-based questionnaire; patient adherence to the recommended number of sessions was also monitored. Cardiac knowledge assessment included a prerehabilitation education quiz, and the same quiz was repeated at patients' final visit and again at the 2-month follow-up. The satisfaction questionnaire was completed at the final visit. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and May 2019, 72 patients were enrolled-41 in the intervention group and 31 in the control group. On the basis of the results of the prerehabilitation and postrehabilitation 6-minute walk test, no significant differences were observed between the intervention and control groups (P=.64). No statistical differences were observed between groups in terms of education (P=.86) or satisfaction (P=.32) at any time point. The control group had statistically more favorable rates of attendance, as determined by the risk group comparison (P=.02) and the comparison of the rates for completing the minimum number of sessions (P=.046), but no correlation was observed between the study group and reasons for ending treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although no improvements were seen in the VR intervention group over the control group, it is worth noting that limitations in the study design may have influenced these outcomes, not the medium itself. Furthermore, the qualitative information suggests that patients may have indeed enjoyed their experience with VR, even though quantitative satisfaction data did not capture this. Further considerations for how and when VR should be applied to CR are suggested in this paper. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945201; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03945201.
