Palliative Care and Advanced Directive Practices at Liver Transplant Centers in the United States.

Introduction: Patients with cirrhosis have a decreased quality of life due to decompensations of their underlying disease. While liver transplantation (LT) has improved outcomes and quality of life for patients with cirrhosis, many patients die or are delisted before transplant. Despite high morbidity and mortality, palliative care (PC) services are underutilized for patients with cirrhosis. Methods: To evaluate current PC and advance care practices at LT centers, a survey was designed and sent to 115 U.S. LT centers. Results: Forty-two surveys were completed (37% response rate) with representation from all United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Nineteen institutions (46.3%) reported 100 or fewer waitlisted patients, while 22 (53.6%) reported more than 100. Twenty-five institutions (59.5%) reported 100 or fewer transplants performed in the last year and 17 (40.5%) reported more than 100. Nineteen transplant centers (45.2%) require patients to discuss advance directives as part of the LT evaluation, while 23 (54.8%) do not. Only 5 centers (12.2%) reported having a dedicated PC provider as part of their transplant team and only 2 reported requiring patients to meet with a PC provider as part of the LT evaluation process. Discussion: This study shows many LT centers do not engage their patients in advance directive discussions and highlights the underutilization of PC services in the LT evaluation process. Our results also show minimal advancement in the collaboration between PC and transplant hepatology over the last decade. Encouraging or requiring LT centers to hold advance directive discussions and incorporate PC providers into the transplant team is a recommended area for improvement.

Assessment of Video Capsule Endoscopy in the Management of Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Evaluation of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding using invasive endoscopic procedures comprising the standard of care (SOC)-upper endoscopy and colonoscopy-can expose the endoscopy staff to SARS-CoV-2. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) does not generate aerosols and only requires 1 person to manage the procedure. Objective: To examine the safety of VCE for the initial evaluation of GI bleeding at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify signs of active bleeding while minimizing patient and personnel exposure, saving personal protective equipment, and avoiding invasive or unnecessary procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter (UMass Memorial Medical Center and Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center) retrospective cohort study including 146 patients with COVID-19 who received VCE as the first-line diagnostic modality was conducted from March 15 to June 15, 2020, compared with SOC in January 2020 for evaluation of GI bleeding. The association between treatment and outcomes was estimated using multivariable regression adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score matching was used to verify the results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was detection of active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding. Secondary end points included the number of patients requiring any invasive procedures, number of additional procedures, rates of rebleeding and rehospitalization, transfusion requirements, and mortality. Results: Among 146 patients, 92 (63.0%) were men; mean (SD) age was 64.93 (14.13) years in the COVID-19 group and 61.33 (13.39) years in the SOC group. Active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding was observed in 44 (59.5%) patients in the COVID-19 group compared with 18 (25.0%) in the SOC group (adjusted odds ratio, 5.23; 95% CI, 2.23 to 12.27). Only 36 patients (48.7%) in the COVID-19 group required any invasive procedure during the hospitalization compared with 70 (97.2%) in the SOC group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001 to 0.08). The mean (SD) number of invasive procedures was 0.59 (0.77) per patient in the COVID-19 group compared with 1.18 (0.48) per patient in the SOC group (adjusted difference, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.31). Both approaches appeared to be safe and there was no significant difference in transfusion requirements, rebleeding, rehospitalization, or in-hospital mortality. No mortality was attributed to GI bleeding in either group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, first-line diagnostic evaluation of acute GI bleeding using VCE appeared to be a safe and useful alternative to the traditional approach of upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Use of VCE was associated with increased detection of active bleeding and a reduced number of invasive procedures and unnecessary exposure of personnel to SARS-CoV-2 and use of personal protective equipment.

Endoscopic Management as a Viable Therapy for Pancreaticopleural and Pancreaticopericardial Fistulas.

Pancreatic fistulas are rare complications of chronic pancreatitis, typically caused when disruption of the pancreatic duct causes leakage of pancreatic fluid that erodes through neighboring organs and structures. Pancreatic fistulas to the pericardium and pleural spaces are extremely rare, and cases of multiple fistulas tracking from the pancreas have not been reported before. Management of these fluid collections is challenging with no consensus described in the current literature. We report a case of a patient with concurrent pancreaticopericardial and pancreaticopleural fistulas who improved with endoscopic management.

Gabapentin in Headache Disorders: What Is the Evidence?

OBJECTIVE: Gabapentin (GBP), originally an antiepileptic drug, is more commonly used in the treatment of pain, including headache disorders. Off-label GBP is used in headache disorders with some success, some failure, and much debate. Due to this ambiguity, a clinical evidence literature review was performed investigating GBP's efficacy in headache disorders. METHODS: Bibliographic reference searches for GBP use in headache disorders were performed in PUBMED and OVID Medline search engines from January 1, 1983 to August 31, 2014. Based on abstracts read by two reviewers, references were excluded if: GBP was not a study compound or headache symptoms were not studied. The resulting references were then read, reviewed, and analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles pertinent to GBP use in headache disorders were retained. Eight headache clinical trials were quality of evidence Class 2 or higher based on American Academy of Neurology criteria. Seven of the eight clinical trials showed statistically significant clinical benefit from GBP in various headache syndromes (though modest affects at times). One study, Mathew et al., had concerns about intention-treat analysis breaches and primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite the conflicting evidence surrounding select studies, a significant amount of evidence shows that GBP has benefit for a majority of primary headache syndromes, including chronic daily headaches. GBP has some efficacy in migraine headache, but not sufficient evidence to suggest primary therapy. When primary headache treatments fail, a GBP trial may be considered in the individual patient.