RESUMEN
Background: We implemented a multi-disciplinary process improvement intervention at our Comprehensive Stroke Center with speech/language pathologists to expedite oral medication delivery in stroke patients. Following a failed nursing dysphagia screen, trained neurology physicians screened dysphagia further to approve use of oral medications. We analyzed the safety and efficacy of this intervention. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively collected data for hospital course, timing of first screen, first oral medication use, and complications (e.g., aspiration pneumonia) in consecutive ischemic stroke patients (9/2019-07/2021). Patients were included if they passed a dysphagia assessment by physicians (Ph), nurses (RN), or speech/language pathologists (SLP). Arrival-to-dysphagia screen and arrival-to-antithrombotic were assessed using restricted mean survival time (RMST). Results: Of the 789 included patients, 673 were passed by RN, 104 by SLP, and 12 by Ph. Compared to patients passed by SLP, those passed by Ph were younger and had less severe deficits (P < .01 for both). Patients were screened more quickly by Ph than RN or SLP (median 38 vs 182 vs 1330-min post-arrival, P = .0001; 299-min RMST difference vs RN [95%CI 22-575, P = .03]; 470-min RMST difference vs SLP [95%CI 175-765, P = .002]). This translated to faster oral antithrombotic use for Ph-passed patients (138-min RMST difference vs RN [95%CI 59-216]; 332-min RMST difference vs SLP [95%CI 253-411]). No patients passed by Ph experienced aspiration pneumonia (0%). Conclusions: We safely conducted a physician-driven dysphagia screening paradigm which led to faster oral antithrombotic delivery without signal of patient harm. Physician availability to complete dysphagia screens in acute stroke patients was a limitation.
RESUMEN
In the United States, long standing deep infections of joint arthroplasty, such as total knee and total hip replacements, are treated with two-stage exchange. This requires the removal of the prior implant, placement of an antibiotic eluting spacer block made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), followed by re-implantation of a new implant after treatment with intravenous antibiotics for six to eight weeks. Unfortunately, the use of PMMA as a spacer material has limitations in terms of mechanical and drug-eluting properties. PMMA is brittle and elutes most of the antibiotics within the first few days. Furthermore, the polymerization reaction for PMMA is highly exothermic, thereby limiting the use to heat-stable antibiotics. We hypothesize that the use of a 3D printed polymeric liner made of polylactic acid (PLA) would overcome the limitations of PMMA because it is a stronger and a less brittle material than PMMA. Furthermore, the liner can also act as a controlled drug delivery vehicle by using built in reservoirs and a network of micro-channels as well as by incorporating antibiotics directly into the polymer during manufacturing stage. Finally, the liner can be 3D printed according to the anatomy of the patient and thereby has the potential to transform the manner in which periprosthetic joint infections are currently treated.
