Quillen, Jaxon K

ABSTRACTPurposeThis study aimed to assess whether kidney stone burden and risk factors at the time of kidney donor evaluation were associated with a symptomatic stone event post‐donor evaluation.MethodsWe identified adults evaluated at Mayo Clinic (two sites) (2000–2011) for living kidney donation and had either a personal history or radiological evidence of kidney stone disease. We analyzed demographics, stone risk factors, stone number/size, and the committee's donation decision and reasons. A follow‐up survey (2022–2023) assessed post‐evaluation symptomatic kidney stones and related morbidity.ResultsAmong 412 potential donors with kidney stone disease, 258 donated, 75 did not donate due to kidney stones, and 79 did not donate for other reasons. Multivariable analysis showed that candidates not donating due to stones had higher body mass index (BMI), prior symptomatic kidney stones, multiple stones on imaging, bilateral kidney stones, and diameter of largest stone ≥3 mm. Of 147 who completed the survey, 26 (18%) had a symptomatic kidney stone post‐donor evaluation. Younger age (p = 0.031) and multiple stones on imaging (p = 0.02) were significant predictors of post‐evaluation symptomatic stones regardless of donation status (p = 0.41).ConclusionsStone burden on imaging and prior symptomatic stone events were associated with not donating. Younger age and stone burden on imaging were the primary risk factors for a symptomatic kidney stone event after donor evaluation.

Abstract The study of prehabilitation and rehabilitation ([p]rehabilitation) to alleviate the sequelae of bladder cancer and its treatment has generated numerous opportunities to improve the quality of life of bladder cancer survivors. The authors conducted a scoping review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify knowledge gaps in and research directions for (p)rehabilitative support for those affected by bladder cancer. The authors systematically searched six databases and synthesized key findings from RCTs conducted from January 1, 2004, through March 15, 2022, that enrolled participants with bladder cancer, survivors, or caregivers in outpatient (p)rehabilitative programs (e.g., exercise, nutrition, or psychological support). Outcomes were characterized according to eight prespecified, clinically relevant categories. The search retrieved 10,968 records, 27 of which met the inclusion criteria, and 24 described unique RCTs with 2471 enrolled participants. Of 24 interventions, 17 (71%) yielded statistically significant results for the outcome of interest. Only one RCT included a cost‐effectiveness analysis, and only two characterized the efficacy of interventions for caregivers. Of 11 RCTs involving psychological support, eight yielded statistically significant results, as did nine of 11 RCTs with physical exercise interventions, three of four RCTs with educational interventions, three of four RCTs with nutritional support interventions, one of two RCTs with pharmacologic medications, and zero of one RCT with physical therapy. The most promising interventions for inclusion in multimodal, personalized (p)rehabilitation programs included exercise, stress management training, cognitive training, smoking and alcohol cessation counseling, immunonutrition, stoma education, and penile rehabilitation. Further studies of the cost effectiveness and efficacy for caregivers of such interventions are needed. Plain Language Summary In a scoping review of all randomized clinical trials involving prehabilitative or rehabilitative diet, exercise, and psychological support interventions for patients with bladder cancer, survivors, and their caregivers, 17 of 24 (71%) interventions yielded statistically significant improvements in the outcome of interest. Clinicians should consider implementing such interventions for those affected by bladder cancer.

Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased risk of ischemic cerebrovascular events despite anticoagulants (AC). We aim to evaluate whether changing AC or adding antiplatelet therapy to anticoagulants (AP + AC) in patients with AF presenting with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) despite AC, decreases the risk of recurrent AIS/TIA compared to patients continued on same AC regimen. Methods Patients with AF on AC presenting with AIS or TIA at our center between 2011- 2021 were included. Data on Demographics, index event, antithrombotic therapy before and after index event, recurrent AIS/TIA, or major bleeding events (MBE) were extracted. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare outcomes between AC unchange vs AC change, and AP + AC vs AC only groups. Results One hundred eighty-five patients were included (mean age 78.3 years; 62% males, median follow-up 9 months (IQR 1-34)). Seventeen patients (9%) had AC change, 100 (54%) received AP + AC, 39 (21%) had recurrent AIS/TIA, and 27 (15%) had MBE following index event. No difference was observed between AC unchange vs AC change and AP + AC vs AC only groups regarding recurrent AIS/TIA (HR 1.72 [.65-4.57], P = .27 and HR 1.02 [.53- 1.98], P = .95, respectively) or MBE (HR .85 [.19-3.67], P = .83 and HR 1.49 [.67-3.33)], P = .33, respectively). Fourteen vascular neurologists treated this cohort and 9(64%) implemented AC changes. Conclusion In this single center retrospective study of 185 patients with AF and AIS/TIA despite AC, changing AC or adding AP agents did not decrease the risk of ischemic cerebrovascular events.

Abstract Context Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal protocol aimed to improve quality of postoperative recovery, minimize complications, and optimize overall self-regulation. Preoperative gabapentin decreases postoperative pain but can be associated with prolonged postoperative somnolence and respiratory depression risk. Although it is known that gabapentin affects the postoperative course, it is unclear if the timing of preoperative administration affects this finding. Objectives This study aims to assess the optimal preoperative timing for gabapentin administration in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery to minimize postoperative somnolence risk. Methods A retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent major gynecologic surgery and received preoperative gabapentin. Patients were grouped based on timing from gabapentin administration to surgical incision (<4 h group vs. ≥4 h group). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were abstracted and compared. Univariate associations between the timing of gabapentin administration and the patient and surgical characteristics and outcomes were tested utilizing two-sample equal-variance t-tests, linear model ANOVA, or Fisher’s exact tests. Associations between the timing of gabapentin administration and the time until the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of 0 were modeled utilizing linear regression, adjusted for age, initial postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU), RASS score, and postoperative narcotics. Results Each group contained 127 patients. Demographics were similar except for age (<4 h group mean=44.2 years; ≥4 h group mean=40.5 years; p=0.021), chronic pain (<4 h group=17.6%; ≥4 h group=43.3%; p<0.001), and surgical indication (<4 h group=pelvic pain [29.1%]; ≥4 h group=pelvic pain [51.2%]; p=0.007). The <4 h group had a similar postoperative narcotic administration (<4 h group mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME]=3.667; ≥4 h group mean MME=4.833; p=0.185). The minutes from surgical closure until the patient received a RASS score of 0 and initial PACU pain score (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]) were similar. The initial PACU oxygen administration volume, hours from surgical closure until the patient transitioned to room air, and initial PACU respiratory rate were similar. The PACU duration, admission secondary to somnolence, and initial PACU Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score showed no difference. Postoperative nausea/vomiting was decreased in the ≥4 h group (<4 h group=24.4%; ≥4 h group=13.4%; p-value=0.036), and urinary retention (<4 h group=14.2%; ≥4 h group=5.5%; p-value=0.033) was decreased in the ≥4 h group. Conclusions The timing of gabapentin administration less than or more than 4 h preoperatively in patients ≥18 years does not significantly affect postoperative somnolence or respiratory depression. Further, it does not have a significant effect on GCS scores or VAS scores.

Abstract Objective To assess the real‐world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. Background The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real‐world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine‐specific medications. Method This was a post‐market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1–3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. Results We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being “very satisfied” with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a “good responder” to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the “good responder” rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. Conclusion Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.