User login
New ESC guidelines for cutting CV risk in noncardiac surgery
The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.
They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.
Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.
The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).
It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.
In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:
First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.
The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:
- It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
- It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
- It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).
However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).
Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.
Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”
Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”
“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
More preoperative recommendations
In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.
If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).
Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).
“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “
“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
Patients with specific types of CVD
Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.
Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”
“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”
Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).
Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”
Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
Postoperative cardiovascular complications
The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.
“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”
“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.
The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.
“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”
In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).
Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.
The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.
The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
Noncardiac surgery risk categories
The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:
- Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
- Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
- High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.
The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.
They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.
Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.
The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).
It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.
In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:
First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.
The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:
- It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
- It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
- It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).
However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).
Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.
Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”
Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”
“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
More preoperative recommendations
In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.
If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).
Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).
“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “
“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
Patients with specific types of CVD
Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.
Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”
“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”
Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).
Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”
Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
Postoperative cardiovascular complications
The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.
“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”
“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.
The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.
“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”
In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).
Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.
The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.
The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
Noncardiac surgery risk categories
The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:
- Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
- Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
- High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.
The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.
They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.
Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.
The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).
It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.
In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:
First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.
The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:
- It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
- It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
- It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).
However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).
Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.
Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”
Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”
“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
More preoperative recommendations
In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.
If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).
Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).
“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “
“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
Patients with specific types of CVD
Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.
Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”
“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”
Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).
Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”
Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
Postoperative cardiovascular complications
The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.
“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”
“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.
The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.
“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”
In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).
Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.
The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.
The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
Noncardiac surgery risk categories
The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:
- Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
- Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
- High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.
The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022
Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks improve fracture pain
results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.
With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.
“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.
Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.
Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.
“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.
To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.
The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.
Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).
Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).
Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.
Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.
“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.
Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.
No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.
However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.
“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible
Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.
Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.
“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.
“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”
Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.
Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.
“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”
Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.
“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.
“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”
The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.
With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.
“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.
Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.
Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.
“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.
To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.
The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.
Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).
Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).
Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.
Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.
“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.
Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.
No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.
However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.
“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible
Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.
Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.
“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.
“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”
Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.
Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.
“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”
Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.
“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.
“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”
The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.
With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.
“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.
Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.
Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.
“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.
To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.
The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.
Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).
Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).
Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.
Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.
“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.
Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.
No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.
However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.
“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible
Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.
Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.
“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.
“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”
Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.
Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.
“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”
Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.
“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.
“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”
The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY
Good news, bad news
“Children’s hospitals saw a more than 25% decline in injury-related emergency room visits during the first year of the pandemic.” There’s a headline that should soothe a nation starved for some good news. It was based on a study published in Pediatrics that reports on data collected in the Pediatric Health Information System between March 2020 and March 2021 using a 3-year period between 2017 and 2020 as a control. How could this not be good news? First, let’s not be too hasty in celebrating the good fortune of all those millions of children spared the pain and anxiety of an emergency department visit.
If you were an administrator of an emergency department attempting to match revenues with expenses, a 25% drop in visits may have hit your bottom line. Office-based pediatricians experienced a similar phenomenon when many parents quickly learned that they could ignore or self-manage minor illnesses and complaints.
A decrease in visits doesn’t necessarily mean that the conditions that drive the traffic flow in your facility have gone away. It may simply be that they are being managed somewhere else. However, it is equally likely that for some reason the pandemic created situations that made the usual illnesses and injuries that flood into emergency departments less likely to occur. And, here, other anecdotal evidence about weight gain and a decline in fitness point to the conclusion that when children are no longer in school, they settle into more sedentary and less injury-generating activities. Injuries from falling off the couch watching television or playing video games alone do occur but certainly with less frequency than the random collisions that are inevitable when scores of classmates are running around on the playground.
So while it may be tempting to view a decline in emergency department visits as a positive statistic, this pandemic should remind us to be careful about how we choose our metrics to measure the health of the community. A decline in injuries in the short term may be masking a more serious erosion in the health of the pediatric population over the long term. At times I worry that as a specialty we are so focused on injury prevention that we lose sight of the fact that being physically active comes with a risk. A risk that we may wish to minimize, but a risk we must accept if we want to encourage the physical activity that we know is so important in the bigger health picture. For example, emergency department visits caused by pedal cycles initially rose 60%, eventually settling into the 25%-30% range leading one to suspect there was a learning or relearning curve.
However, while visits for minor injuries declined 25%, those associated with firearms rose initially 22%, and then 42%, and finally over 35%. These numbers combined with significant increases in visits from suffocation, nonpedal transportation, and suicide intent make it clear that, for most children, being in school is significantly less dangerous than staying at home.
As the pandemic continues to tumble on and we are presented with future questions about whether to keep schools open or closed, I hope the results of this study and others will help school officials and their advisers step back and look beyond the simple metric of case numbers and appreciate that there are benefits to being in school that go far beyond what can be learned in class.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
“Children’s hospitals saw a more than 25% decline in injury-related emergency room visits during the first year of the pandemic.” There’s a headline that should soothe a nation starved for some good news. It was based on a study published in Pediatrics that reports on data collected in the Pediatric Health Information System between March 2020 and March 2021 using a 3-year period between 2017 and 2020 as a control. How could this not be good news? First, let’s not be too hasty in celebrating the good fortune of all those millions of children spared the pain and anxiety of an emergency department visit.
If you were an administrator of an emergency department attempting to match revenues with expenses, a 25% drop in visits may have hit your bottom line. Office-based pediatricians experienced a similar phenomenon when many parents quickly learned that they could ignore or self-manage minor illnesses and complaints.
A decrease in visits doesn’t necessarily mean that the conditions that drive the traffic flow in your facility have gone away. It may simply be that they are being managed somewhere else. However, it is equally likely that for some reason the pandemic created situations that made the usual illnesses and injuries that flood into emergency departments less likely to occur. And, here, other anecdotal evidence about weight gain and a decline in fitness point to the conclusion that when children are no longer in school, they settle into more sedentary and less injury-generating activities. Injuries from falling off the couch watching television or playing video games alone do occur but certainly with less frequency than the random collisions that are inevitable when scores of classmates are running around on the playground.
So while it may be tempting to view a decline in emergency department visits as a positive statistic, this pandemic should remind us to be careful about how we choose our metrics to measure the health of the community. A decline in injuries in the short term may be masking a more serious erosion in the health of the pediatric population over the long term. At times I worry that as a specialty we are so focused on injury prevention that we lose sight of the fact that being physically active comes with a risk. A risk that we may wish to minimize, but a risk we must accept if we want to encourage the physical activity that we know is so important in the bigger health picture. For example, emergency department visits caused by pedal cycles initially rose 60%, eventually settling into the 25%-30% range leading one to suspect there was a learning or relearning curve.
However, while visits for minor injuries declined 25%, those associated with firearms rose initially 22%, and then 42%, and finally over 35%. These numbers combined with significant increases in visits from suffocation, nonpedal transportation, and suicide intent make it clear that, for most children, being in school is significantly less dangerous than staying at home.
As the pandemic continues to tumble on and we are presented with future questions about whether to keep schools open or closed, I hope the results of this study and others will help school officials and their advisers step back and look beyond the simple metric of case numbers and appreciate that there are benefits to being in school that go far beyond what can be learned in class.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
“Children’s hospitals saw a more than 25% decline in injury-related emergency room visits during the first year of the pandemic.” There’s a headline that should soothe a nation starved for some good news. It was based on a study published in Pediatrics that reports on data collected in the Pediatric Health Information System between March 2020 and March 2021 using a 3-year period between 2017 and 2020 as a control. How could this not be good news? First, let’s not be too hasty in celebrating the good fortune of all those millions of children spared the pain and anxiety of an emergency department visit.
If you were an administrator of an emergency department attempting to match revenues with expenses, a 25% drop in visits may have hit your bottom line. Office-based pediatricians experienced a similar phenomenon when many parents quickly learned that they could ignore or self-manage minor illnesses and complaints.
A decrease in visits doesn’t necessarily mean that the conditions that drive the traffic flow in your facility have gone away. It may simply be that they are being managed somewhere else. However, it is equally likely that for some reason the pandemic created situations that made the usual illnesses and injuries that flood into emergency departments less likely to occur. And, here, other anecdotal evidence about weight gain and a decline in fitness point to the conclusion that when children are no longer in school, they settle into more sedentary and less injury-generating activities. Injuries from falling off the couch watching television or playing video games alone do occur but certainly with less frequency than the random collisions that are inevitable when scores of classmates are running around on the playground.
So while it may be tempting to view a decline in emergency department visits as a positive statistic, this pandemic should remind us to be careful about how we choose our metrics to measure the health of the community. A decline in injuries in the short term may be masking a more serious erosion in the health of the pediatric population over the long term. At times I worry that as a specialty we are so focused on injury prevention that we lose sight of the fact that being physically active comes with a risk. A risk that we may wish to minimize, but a risk we must accept if we want to encourage the physical activity that we know is so important in the bigger health picture. For example, emergency department visits caused by pedal cycles initially rose 60%, eventually settling into the 25%-30% range leading one to suspect there was a learning or relearning curve.
However, while visits for minor injuries declined 25%, those associated with firearms rose initially 22%, and then 42%, and finally over 35%. These numbers combined with significant increases in visits from suffocation, nonpedal transportation, and suicide intent make it clear that, for most children, being in school is significantly less dangerous than staying at home.
As the pandemic continues to tumble on and we are presented with future questions about whether to keep schools open or closed, I hope the results of this study and others will help school officials and their advisers step back and look beyond the simple metric of case numbers and appreciate that there are benefits to being in school that go far beyond what can be learned in class.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Safest, most effective medications for spine-related pain in older adults?
, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.
Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.
However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.
Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.
“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.
“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.
The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
Recommendations, warnings
With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.
Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.
Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.
These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.
They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
‘Rational therapeutic choices’
Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.
Other findings include the following:
- Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
- Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
- Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.
However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.
Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.
“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.
“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.
They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.
The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.
Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.
However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.
Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.
“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.
“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.
The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
Recommendations, warnings
With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.
Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.
Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.
These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.
They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
‘Rational therapeutic choices’
Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.
Other findings include the following:
- Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
- Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
- Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.
However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.
Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.
“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.
“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.
They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.
The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.
Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.
However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.
Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.
“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.
“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.
The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
Recommendations, warnings
With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.
Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.
Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.
These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.
They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
‘Rational therapeutic choices’
Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.
Other findings include the following:
- Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
- Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
- Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.
However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.
Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.
“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.
“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.
They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.
The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DRUGS AND AGING
A Veteran With Recurrent, Painful Knee Effusion
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.
►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?
►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.1
It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.
Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?
►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease.
►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.
Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?
►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.
►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.
Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?
►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.5 Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.5 Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.6 However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.2 In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.2
► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.
Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?
► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.7 This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.8 Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.7 Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.7 However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.
Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?
►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.
For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.9 This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.10 Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.11 However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.
► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.
Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?
►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.12 This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.12
Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.
► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.
Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?
► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.
►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?
►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.
We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.
►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.
1. Siva C, Velazquez C, Mody A, Brasington R. Diagnosing acute monoarthritis in adults: a practical approach for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(1):83-90.
2. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):739-748. doi:10.7326/M19-3602
3. Silverman MM, Berman AL. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
4. Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: Suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432-443. doi:10.1111/sltb.12067
5. Quinlan J, Cox F. Acute pain management in patients with drug dependence syndrome. Pain Rep. 2017;2(4):e611. Published 2017 Jul 27. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000611
6. Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, et al. Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566506/
7. Seidman AJ, Limaiem F. Synovial fluid analysis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated May 8, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537114
8. Arvikar SL, Steere AC. Diagnosis and treatment of Lyme arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):269-280. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.004
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA. 1995;274(12):937.
10. Craft JE, Grodzicki RL, Steere AC. Antibody response in Lyme disease: evaluation of diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 1984;149(5):789-795. doi:10.1093/infdis/149.5.789
11. Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys PN, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by polymerase chain reaction in synovial fluid from patients with Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:10.1056/NEJM199401273300401
12. Steere AC. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(5):2148-2151. doi:10.1172/JCI138062
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.
►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?
►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.1
It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.
Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?
►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease.
►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.
Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?
►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.
►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.
Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?
►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.5 Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.5 Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.6 However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.2 In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.2
► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.
Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?
► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.7 This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.8 Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.7 Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.7 However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.
Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?
►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.
For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.9 This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.10 Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.11 However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.
► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.
Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?
►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.12 This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.12
Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.
► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.
Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?
► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.
►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?
►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.
We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.
►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.
►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?
►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.1
It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.
Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?
►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease.
►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.
Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?
►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.
►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.
Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?
►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.5 Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.5 Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.6 However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.2 In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.2
► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.
Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?
► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.7 This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.8 Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.7 Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.7 However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.
Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?
►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.
For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.9 This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.10 Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.11 However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.
► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.
Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?
►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.12 This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.12
Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.
► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.
Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?
► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.
►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?
►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.
We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.
►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.
1. Siva C, Velazquez C, Mody A, Brasington R. Diagnosing acute monoarthritis in adults: a practical approach for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(1):83-90.
2. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):739-748. doi:10.7326/M19-3602
3. Silverman MM, Berman AL. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
4. Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: Suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432-443. doi:10.1111/sltb.12067
5. Quinlan J, Cox F. Acute pain management in patients with drug dependence syndrome. Pain Rep. 2017;2(4):e611. Published 2017 Jul 27. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000611
6. Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, et al. Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566506/
7. Seidman AJ, Limaiem F. Synovial fluid analysis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated May 8, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537114
8. Arvikar SL, Steere AC. Diagnosis and treatment of Lyme arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):269-280. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.004
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA. 1995;274(12):937.
10. Craft JE, Grodzicki RL, Steere AC. Antibody response in Lyme disease: evaluation of diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 1984;149(5):789-795. doi:10.1093/infdis/149.5.789
11. Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys PN, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by polymerase chain reaction in synovial fluid from patients with Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:10.1056/NEJM199401273300401
12. Steere AC. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(5):2148-2151. doi:10.1172/JCI138062
1. Siva C, Velazquez C, Mody A, Brasington R. Diagnosing acute monoarthritis in adults: a practical approach for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(1):83-90.
2. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):739-748. doi:10.7326/M19-3602
3. Silverman MM, Berman AL. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
4. Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: Suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432-443. doi:10.1111/sltb.12067
5. Quinlan J, Cox F. Acute pain management in patients with drug dependence syndrome. Pain Rep. 2017;2(4):e611. Published 2017 Jul 27. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000611
6. Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, et al. Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566506/
7. Seidman AJ, Limaiem F. Synovial fluid analysis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated May 8, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537114
8. Arvikar SL, Steere AC. Diagnosis and treatment of Lyme arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):269-280. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.004
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA. 1995;274(12):937.
10. Craft JE, Grodzicki RL, Steere AC. Antibody response in Lyme disease: evaluation of diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 1984;149(5):789-795. doi:10.1093/infdis/149.5.789
11. Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys PN, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by polymerase chain reaction in synovial fluid from patients with Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:10.1056/NEJM199401273300401
12. Steere AC. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(5):2148-2151. doi:10.1172/JCI138062
Add AFib to noncardiac surgery risk evaluation: New support
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A doctor’s missed diagnosis results in mega award
, according to a story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.
In January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.
But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.
Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.
Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.
In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)
In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”
The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.
In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.
A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”
At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.
In January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.
But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.
Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.
Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.
In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)
In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”
The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.
In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.
A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”
At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.
In January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.
But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.
Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.
Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.
In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)
In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”
The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.
In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.
A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”
At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lithium lowers osteoporosis risk in bipolar patients…and orthopedists take notice
NEW ORLEANS –
“Our findings emphasize that bone health should be a priority in the clinical management of bipolar disorder, and that the potential bone-protective effects of lithium should be subjected to further study – both in the context of osteoporosis and bipolar disorder,” said Soren D. Ostergaard, MD, PhD, the study’s first author and a professor in the psychosis research unit, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital – Psychiatry.
For the retrospective cohort study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, and also published recently in JAMA Psychiatry, the authors reviewed data on 22,912 patients treated for bipolar disorder in Denmark between 1996 and 2019, and compared each patient with 5 age- and sex-matched controls, amounting to 114,560 individuals in the general population.
Of the patients with bipolar disorder, 38.2% were treated with lithium, while 73.6% received an antipsychotic drug; 16.8% received valproate and 33.1% received lamotrigine.
With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the incidence of osteoporosis per 1,000 person-years was 8.70 among patients with bipolar disorder, compared with an incidence of 7.84 among controls, (hazard rate ratio, 1.15).
The association of bipolar disorder with osteoporosis was notably more pronounced among males (HRR, 1.42) compared with females (HRR, 1.07).
Notably, those with bipolar disorder treated with lithium showed a significantly reduced risk of osteoporosis compared with patients not receiving lithium (HRR, 0.62), after adjustment for factors including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, use of systemic corticosteroids, use of sedative medication, and eating disorder diagnosis. No similar reductions in osteoporosis risk were observed among those treated with antipsychotics, valproate or lamotrigine.
Of note, the reduced risk of osteoporosis with lithium appeared after about year 2 of treatment (HR, 0.77) and remained steady at more than 4 years (HR, 0.76). A higher cumulative lithium dose was meanwhile associated with a greater decrease in the risk of osteoporosis (P < .001).
Results confirm prior research
The results are consistent with previous smaller studies indicating that people with bipolar disorders shown an increased risk of low bone density, osteopenia, and even fracture.
The higher risk of osteoporosis in bipolar disorder may be explained by lifestyle factors, Dr. Ostergaard noted in an interview.
“It could be the depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder, but generally speaking, both phases can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle and that’s likely what drives the association between bipolar disorder and osteoporosis,” he said. “Increases in behaviors such as smoking and alcohol consumption may be factors as well. Similar findings are seen with depression.”
While more needs to be understood, Dr. Ostergaard speculated that higher rates of such behaviors in men with bipolar disorder may explain the higher osteoporosis risk observed in men.
In general, however, the increased risk underscores the importance of raising awareness of bone health among patients with bipolar disorder, the authors concluded.
“Specifically, guiding patients toward a lifestyle supporting bone health (no smoking, reduced alcohol consumption, healthy diet, and exercising) and monitoring bone density via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans among those with additional risk factors seems warranted,” they wrote.
The implications of the lithium findings are trickier to determine, Dr. Ostergaard said.
“The evidence for lithium in bipolar disorder are well established, and our findings don’t really add to that,” he said. “The main thing is it suggests there might be some advantages of lithium that we’re not really aware of.”
Findings important for orthopedists
The unique properties observed with lithium have caught the attention of some in orthopedics, and researchers with the University of Toronto – having found intriguing bone healing with lithium in preclinical rodent studies – are currently conducting a first-of-its-kind multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential effects of lithium in the healing of bone fractures.
Diane Nam, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and lead investigator on the study, said in an interview that “I’m not surprised by [Dr. Ostergaard’s] paper because it’s consistent with what we have observed about the positive effects on bone healing.”
Dr. Nam and associates have already established administration parameters for their clinical study, determining that optimal effects in fracture healing appear to require that lithium treatment not begin at the time of fracture, but 2 weeks afterward, when new bone is ready to be laid down at the fracture site. In their trial, low daily doses of lithium (at 300 mg) are given only for a duration of 2 weeks.
“While our current trial is intended for a healthy, nonosteoporotic adult population, we have also demonstrated in our preclinical studies that lithium is just as effective in improving fracture healing in an osteoporotic model when the timing of administration is slightly delayed,” she said. “How this is relevant and translatable in patients with bipolar disorder requires further study.”
Dr. Nam said her research team thinks that “not only will the fracture heal faster, but it will heal reliably as delayed or impaired fracture healing remains a significant orthopedic problem.”
While details are not yet available, a preliminary analysis has shown results “going in a positive direction,” enough for the team to be granted funding for the multicenter trial.
Dr. Ostergaard and Dr. Nam reported no disclosures or conflicts.
NEW ORLEANS –
“Our findings emphasize that bone health should be a priority in the clinical management of bipolar disorder, and that the potential bone-protective effects of lithium should be subjected to further study – both in the context of osteoporosis and bipolar disorder,” said Soren D. Ostergaard, MD, PhD, the study’s first author and a professor in the psychosis research unit, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital – Psychiatry.
For the retrospective cohort study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, and also published recently in JAMA Psychiatry, the authors reviewed data on 22,912 patients treated for bipolar disorder in Denmark between 1996 and 2019, and compared each patient with 5 age- and sex-matched controls, amounting to 114,560 individuals in the general population.
Of the patients with bipolar disorder, 38.2% were treated with lithium, while 73.6% received an antipsychotic drug; 16.8% received valproate and 33.1% received lamotrigine.
With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the incidence of osteoporosis per 1,000 person-years was 8.70 among patients with bipolar disorder, compared with an incidence of 7.84 among controls, (hazard rate ratio, 1.15).
The association of bipolar disorder with osteoporosis was notably more pronounced among males (HRR, 1.42) compared with females (HRR, 1.07).
Notably, those with bipolar disorder treated with lithium showed a significantly reduced risk of osteoporosis compared with patients not receiving lithium (HRR, 0.62), after adjustment for factors including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, use of systemic corticosteroids, use of sedative medication, and eating disorder diagnosis. No similar reductions in osteoporosis risk were observed among those treated with antipsychotics, valproate or lamotrigine.
Of note, the reduced risk of osteoporosis with lithium appeared after about year 2 of treatment (HR, 0.77) and remained steady at more than 4 years (HR, 0.76). A higher cumulative lithium dose was meanwhile associated with a greater decrease in the risk of osteoporosis (P < .001).
Results confirm prior research
The results are consistent with previous smaller studies indicating that people with bipolar disorders shown an increased risk of low bone density, osteopenia, and even fracture.
The higher risk of osteoporosis in bipolar disorder may be explained by lifestyle factors, Dr. Ostergaard noted in an interview.
“It could be the depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder, but generally speaking, both phases can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle and that’s likely what drives the association between bipolar disorder and osteoporosis,” he said. “Increases in behaviors such as smoking and alcohol consumption may be factors as well. Similar findings are seen with depression.”
While more needs to be understood, Dr. Ostergaard speculated that higher rates of such behaviors in men with bipolar disorder may explain the higher osteoporosis risk observed in men.
In general, however, the increased risk underscores the importance of raising awareness of bone health among patients with bipolar disorder, the authors concluded.
“Specifically, guiding patients toward a lifestyle supporting bone health (no smoking, reduced alcohol consumption, healthy diet, and exercising) and monitoring bone density via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans among those with additional risk factors seems warranted,” they wrote.
The implications of the lithium findings are trickier to determine, Dr. Ostergaard said.
“The evidence for lithium in bipolar disorder are well established, and our findings don’t really add to that,” he said. “The main thing is it suggests there might be some advantages of lithium that we’re not really aware of.”
Findings important for orthopedists
The unique properties observed with lithium have caught the attention of some in orthopedics, and researchers with the University of Toronto – having found intriguing bone healing with lithium in preclinical rodent studies – are currently conducting a first-of-its-kind multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential effects of lithium in the healing of bone fractures.
Diane Nam, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and lead investigator on the study, said in an interview that “I’m not surprised by [Dr. Ostergaard’s] paper because it’s consistent with what we have observed about the positive effects on bone healing.”
Dr. Nam and associates have already established administration parameters for their clinical study, determining that optimal effects in fracture healing appear to require that lithium treatment not begin at the time of fracture, but 2 weeks afterward, when new bone is ready to be laid down at the fracture site. In their trial, low daily doses of lithium (at 300 mg) are given only for a duration of 2 weeks.
“While our current trial is intended for a healthy, nonosteoporotic adult population, we have also demonstrated in our preclinical studies that lithium is just as effective in improving fracture healing in an osteoporotic model when the timing of administration is slightly delayed,” she said. “How this is relevant and translatable in patients with bipolar disorder requires further study.”
Dr. Nam said her research team thinks that “not only will the fracture heal faster, but it will heal reliably as delayed or impaired fracture healing remains a significant orthopedic problem.”
While details are not yet available, a preliminary analysis has shown results “going in a positive direction,” enough for the team to be granted funding for the multicenter trial.
Dr. Ostergaard and Dr. Nam reported no disclosures or conflicts.
NEW ORLEANS –
“Our findings emphasize that bone health should be a priority in the clinical management of bipolar disorder, and that the potential bone-protective effects of lithium should be subjected to further study – both in the context of osteoporosis and bipolar disorder,” said Soren D. Ostergaard, MD, PhD, the study’s first author and a professor in the psychosis research unit, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital – Psychiatry.
For the retrospective cohort study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, and also published recently in JAMA Psychiatry, the authors reviewed data on 22,912 patients treated for bipolar disorder in Denmark between 1996 and 2019, and compared each patient with 5 age- and sex-matched controls, amounting to 114,560 individuals in the general population.
Of the patients with bipolar disorder, 38.2% were treated with lithium, while 73.6% received an antipsychotic drug; 16.8% received valproate and 33.1% received lamotrigine.
With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the incidence of osteoporosis per 1,000 person-years was 8.70 among patients with bipolar disorder, compared with an incidence of 7.84 among controls, (hazard rate ratio, 1.15).
The association of bipolar disorder with osteoporosis was notably more pronounced among males (HRR, 1.42) compared with females (HRR, 1.07).
Notably, those with bipolar disorder treated with lithium showed a significantly reduced risk of osteoporosis compared with patients not receiving lithium (HRR, 0.62), after adjustment for factors including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, use of systemic corticosteroids, use of sedative medication, and eating disorder diagnosis. No similar reductions in osteoporosis risk were observed among those treated with antipsychotics, valproate or lamotrigine.
Of note, the reduced risk of osteoporosis with lithium appeared after about year 2 of treatment (HR, 0.77) and remained steady at more than 4 years (HR, 0.76). A higher cumulative lithium dose was meanwhile associated with a greater decrease in the risk of osteoporosis (P < .001).
Results confirm prior research
The results are consistent with previous smaller studies indicating that people with bipolar disorders shown an increased risk of low bone density, osteopenia, and even fracture.
The higher risk of osteoporosis in bipolar disorder may be explained by lifestyle factors, Dr. Ostergaard noted in an interview.
“It could be the depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder, but generally speaking, both phases can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle and that’s likely what drives the association between bipolar disorder and osteoporosis,” he said. “Increases in behaviors such as smoking and alcohol consumption may be factors as well. Similar findings are seen with depression.”
While more needs to be understood, Dr. Ostergaard speculated that higher rates of such behaviors in men with bipolar disorder may explain the higher osteoporosis risk observed in men.
In general, however, the increased risk underscores the importance of raising awareness of bone health among patients with bipolar disorder, the authors concluded.
“Specifically, guiding patients toward a lifestyle supporting bone health (no smoking, reduced alcohol consumption, healthy diet, and exercising) and monitoring bone density via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans among those with additional risk factors seems warranted,” they wrote.
The implications of the lithium findings are trickier to determine, Dr. Ostergaard said.
“The evidence for lithium in bipolar disorder are well established, and our findings don’t really add to that,” he said. “The main thing is it suggests there might be some advantages of lithium that we’re not really aware of.”
Findings important for orthopedists
The unique properties observed with lithium have caught the attention of some in orthopedics, and researchers with the University of Toronto – having found intriguing bone healing with lithium in preclinical rodent studies – are currently conducting a first-of-its-kind multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential effects of lithium in the healing of bone fractures.
Diane Nam, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and lead investigator on the study, said in an interview that “I’m not surprised by [Dr. Ostergaard’s] paper because it’s consistent with what we have observed about the positive effects on bone healing.”
Dr. Nam and associates have already established administration parameters for their clinical study, determining that optimal effects in fracture healing appear to require that lithium treatment not begin at the time of fracture, but 2 weeks afterward, when new bone is ready to be laid down at the fracture site. In their trial, low daily doses of lithium (at 300 mg) are given only for a duration of 2 weeks.
“While our current trial is intended for a healthy, nonosteoporotic adult population, we have also demonstrated in our preclinical studies that lithium is just as effective in improving fracture healing in an osteoporotic model when the timing of administration is slightly delayed,” she said. “How this is relevant and translatable in patients with bipolar disorder requires further study.”
Dr. Nam said her research team thinks that “not only will the fracture heal faster, but it will heal reliably as delayed or impaired fracture healing remains a significant orthopedic problem.”
While details are not yet available, a preliminary analysis has shown results “going in a positive direction,” enough for the team to be granted funding for the multicenter trial.
Dr. Ostergaard and Dr. Nam reported no disclosures or conflicts.
AT APA 2022
‘Where does it hurt?’: Primary care tips for common ortho problems
Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.
But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,
and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.
The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”
The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.
“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”
Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”
Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.
“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.
Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.
Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.
An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.
An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.
Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”
In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.
Treating knee pain
Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.
Three types of injections also can help:
- Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
- Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
- Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).
The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.
“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”
He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.
Shoulder pain
The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.
As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.
First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?
Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.
Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.
As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.
MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.
Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.
Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.
But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,
and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.
The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”
The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.
“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”
Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”
Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.
“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.
Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.
Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.
An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.
An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.
Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”
In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.
Treating knee pain
Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.
Three types of injections also can help:
- Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
- Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
- Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).
The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.
“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”
He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.
Shoulder pain
The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.
As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.
First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?
Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.
Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.
As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.
MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.
Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.
Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.
But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,
and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.
The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”
The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.
“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”
Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”
Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.
“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.
Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.
Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.
An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.
An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.
Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”
In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.
Treating knee pain
Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.
Three types of injections also can help:
- Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
- Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
- Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).
The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.
“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”
He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.
Shoulder pain
The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.
As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.
First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?
Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.
Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.
As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.
MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.
Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.
Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM INTERNAL MEDICINE 2022
Wearable sensors deemed reliable for home gait assessment in knee OA
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
FROM OARSI 2022