Herberts, Michelle

Abstract Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment for moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in elderly patients does not improve daytime sleepiness, or quality of life outcomes, despite improving apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). While oral appliance therapy (OAT) is known to be an effective treatment for mild-to-moderate OSA, its efficacy in treatment of elderly patients with severe OSA is unknown. Methods Retrospective chart review of patients ≥ 65 years old with diagnosis of OSA, treated with OAT, who underwent subsequent follow-up sleep testing and clinical assessments, including Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), a measure of daytime sleepiness. Results We studied 66 elderly patients with OSA (31 women, 35 men), including 58 with mild-to-moderate OSA (AHI < 30) and 8 with severe OSA (AHI ≥ 30) treated with OAT. At baseline, patients with mild-to-moderate OSA had a median AHI of 11.6 compared to 41.3 in patients with severe OSA (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in ESS score between patients with mild-to-moderate OSA (median ESS = 8; IQR = 4-12) and severe OSA (median ESS = 6; IQR = 3-9). Following their OSA diagnosis, OAT was offered due to PAP intolerance (n = 32), patient preference (n = 28), or as an alternative treatment option (n = 4). After initiation of OAT, 42 patients with mild-to-moderate and 7 with severe OSA underwent follow-up assessment with home sleep testing (n = 32), oximetry (n = 15), or polysomnography (n = 2). At follow-up assessment, ESS was decreased in patients with mild-to-moderate OSA (median ESS = 5; IQR = 3-8) and severe OSA (median ESS = 5; IQR = 3-7), indicating reduction in daytime sleepiness in response to OAT in both groups. Moreover, 50% of patients with mild-to-moderate OSA and 50% of severe OSA patients saw ≥ 50% reduction in AHI. Conclusion Our study findings suggest that treatment with OAT in mild-to-moderate and severe OSA is tolerable and effective in elderly patients who do not have contraindication for this treatment. OAT should be considered as an alternative treatment specifically for elderly adults with severe OSA not tolerating or improving with PAP therapy. Support (if any)

Abstract Introduction Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a heterogenous group of parenchymal lung disorders with multiple etiologies. ILD often affects the quality of life and survival of patients. OSA is commonly diagnosed among ILD patients with reported prevalences of 50-90%, and a prevalence of moderate to severe OSA as high as 65%. There is also concern that patients with ILD may be less tolerant of PAP therapies. We aim to identify differences in PAP treatment response and adherence in patients with ILD and OSA compared with a group of matched OSA controls. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients ≥ 18 years-old that were evaluated at Mayo Clinic Center for Sleep Medicine between July 2012 to June 2022. Inclusion criteria were patients with a diagnosis of ILD per ATS criteria also diagnosed with OSA by HSAT or PSG. Control OSA patients were matched to ILD/OSA patients by age, BMI, and AHI ranges. Exclusion criteria included comorbid conditions of asthma or COPD. Patients with early non-adherence to CPAP or those who didn't have sleep follow up were also excluded. Follow-up sleep visits were assessed to determine CPAP adherence, change in PAP pressure, addition of oxygen, and change in Epworth sleepiness scale. Results We compared 51 patients with ILD/OSA and 51 OSA matched-controls. Twenty-five ILD/OSA patients were diagnosed by PSG and 26 by HSAT. Median treatment follow-up for the ILD group was 7 months (IQR of 3 to 18 months). Baseline characteristics, including oxygen desaturation index (ODI), oxygen saturation, time spent below 89% during overnight oximetry, and baseline Epworth scale, were similar between ILD/OSA and non-ILD OSA patients. Importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in PAP adherence, median PAP levels, PAP pressure change, residual AHI, or change in Epworth after treatment Conclusion There was no significant difference in baseline OSA characteristics, treatment response, and PAP adherence in ILD patients with OSA compared with matched non-ILD OSA controls. Outcome assessment may be limited by sample size and the shorter follow-up period. Future studies should include longer-term follow-up with a larger ILD cohort to assess the impact of ILD progression on PAP adherence over time. Support (if any)

Hospital medicine ward rounds are often conducted away from patients’ bedsides, but it is unknown if more time-at-bedside is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objective is to measure the association between “time-at-bedside,” patient experience, and patient–clinician care agreement during ward rounds. Research assistants directly observed medicine services to quantify the amount of time spent discussing each patient’s care inside versus outside the patient’s room. “Time-at-bedside” was defined as the proportion of time spent discussing a patient’s care in his or her room. Patient experience and patient–clinician care agreement both were measured immediately after ward rounds. Results demonstrated that the majority of patient and physicians completely agreement on planned tests (66.3%), planned procedures (79.7%), medication changes (50.6%), and discharge location (66.9%), but had no agreement on the patient’s main concern (74.4%) and discharge date (50.6%). Time-at-bedside was not correlated with care agreement or patient experience ( P > .05 for all comparisons). This study demonstrates that spending more time at the bedside during ward rounds, alone, is insufficient to improve patient experience.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of musculoskeletal (MSK) injury among gastroenterologists are estimated to be as high as 75%, exceeding rates of 35% among non-proceduralists. Specific ergonomic/procedural factors influencing these injuries have yet to be defined. We sought to characterize potential risk factors for MSK injury by analyzing the physical traits and technical procedural data of a cohort of endoscopists. METHODS: The QuickDASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) survey was sent to all gastroenterologists across a large tertiary care system. Added questions assessed injury characteristics, glove size, and other demographic data. Endpoints defining affected vs. unaffected groups include self-reported function-limiting upper extremity or back pain, injury necessitating limiting/stopping endoscopy, and trends toward higher QuickDash, Work Impairment, or Sport/Instrument Disability scores. A procedural database capturing all endoscopic activities of each respondent from 2011 to 2018 was queried to gather procedural types, volumes, durations, and insertion times; scope types; and polyp detection rates. RESULTS: 64 surveys were completed (28.1% female, mean age 44.4 ±10.8 yrs). The average time in practice was 18.9 (±10.8) years. 51% (n = 33) of respondents reported significant activity-limiting pain, including hand/wrist (n = 31), arm/elbow (n = 12), shoulder (n = 19), and back (n = 24) pain. Characteristics between affected and non-affected groups are detailed in Table 1 with further exploratory analyses found in Table 2. Those needing to limit/stop endoscopy due to pain more frequently used pediatric scopes (31% vs. 19%, P = 0.037), took longer to perform colonoscopy (25.3 vs. 22.1 minutes, P = 0.035) and had lower yearly procedural volumes (532 vs. 807, P = 0.009). Those with hand/wrist pain had longer colonoscopy insertion times (9.35 vs. 8.21 minutes, P = 0.03) and less colonoscopy hands-on scope hours per year (81.2 vs. 111.7 hours, P = 0.039). Females had more severe shoulder pain ( P = 0.04), but there were no other associations with sex or small glove size. CONCLUSION: Activity-limiting MSK injuries affect over 50% of endoscopists. MSK symptoms were associated with longer procedure times and higher EGD or push enteroscopy volumes. Symptomatic subjects were more likely to use pediatric colonoscopes. Hand/wrist pain is the most common and (presumably) the most limiting type of injury. Further prospective monitoring is warranted to better elucidate which variables are causative versus compensatory responses to injury.