Pearson, Kristina K.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors have a dynamic posthospital course which warrants close monitoring. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) could be used to improve quality and efficiency of AKI survivor care. Objective: The objective of this report was to describe the development and preliminary feasibility of an AKI RPM program launched in October 2021. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: Patients enrolled in the AKI RPM program were those who experienced AKI during a hospitalization and underwent nephrology consultation. Measurements/Methods: At enrollment, patients were provided with home monitoring technology and underwent weekly laboratory assessments. Nurses evaluated the data daily and adhered to prespecified protocols for management and escalation of care if needed. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled in AKI RPM in the first 5 months. Median duration of program participation was 36 (31, 40) days. Eight patients (40%) experienced an unplanned readmission, or an emergency department visit, half (N = 4) of which were attributed to AKI and related circumstances. Of the 9 postgraduation survey respondents, all were satisfied with the RPM program and 89% would recommend RPM to other patients with similar health conditions. Limitations: Acute kidney injury RPM was made possible by the existing infrastructure in our integrated health system and the robust resources available in the Mayo Clinic Center for Digital Health. Such infrastructure may not be universally available which could limit scale and generalizability of such a program. Conclusions: Remote patient monitoring can offer a unique opportunity to bridge the care transition from hospital to home and increase access to quality care for the AKI survivors.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

Background: Carbohydrate counting may improve glycemic control in hospitalized cardiology patients by providing individualized insulin doses tailored to meal consumption. The purpose of this study was to compare glycemic outcomes with mealtime insulin dosed by carbohydrate counting versus fixed dosing in the inpatient setting. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 225 adult medical cardiology patients who received mealtime, basal, and correction-scale insulin concurrently for at least 72 h and up to 7 days in the interval March 1, 2010–November 7, 2013. Mealtime insulin was dosed by carbohydrate counting or with fixed doses determined prior to meal intake. An inpatient diabetes consult service was responsible for insulin management. Exclusion criteria included receipt of an insulin infusion. The primary end point compared mean daily postprandial glucose values, whereas secondary end points included comparison of preprandial glucose values and mean daily rates of hypoglycemia. Results: Mean postprandial glucose level on Day 7 was 204 and 183 mg/dL in the carbohydrate counting and fixed mealtime dose groups, respectively (unadjusted P =0.04, adjusted P =0.12). There were no statistical differences between groups on Days 2–6. Greater rates of preprandial hypoglycemia were observed in the carbohydrate counting cohort on Day 5 (8.6% vs. 1.5%, P =0.02), Day 6 (1.7% vs. 0%, P =0.01), and Day 7 (7.1% vs. 0%, P =0.008). No differences in postprandial hypoglycemia were seen. Conclusions: Mealtime insulin dosing by carbohydrate counting was associated with similar glycemic outcomes as fixed mealtime insulin dosing, except for a greater incidence of preprandial hypoglycemia. Additional comparative studies that include hospital outcomes are needed.