Buras, Matthew

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

Abstract Background: Unlike with solid organ cancers, little data is available on how diabetes mellitus (DM) and hematologic malignancies interact to affect survival and glycemic control. We examined the impact of DM on survival in patients with leukemia and the effect of leukemia on glycemic control. Materials and Methods: Patients with leukemia with and without DM were matched 1:1 (2007–2017), 70 matched pairs (total N=140 pts) were included in the analysis. We compared characteristics between cases and controls and assessed survival with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Mixed models compared hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose levels over time. Results: The median age of patients at diagnosis was 56 (18–94); 60% were male and 89% had acute leukemia. Among those with DM, HbA1c was only recorded in 25 of 70 patients during the year following cancer diagnosis and was 6.8%. There was no change in HbA1c values over time in these DM patients. Mean glucose was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (p&lt;0.001). Time (days since leukemia diagnosis) was significant (p&lt;0.001) and there was a significant interaction effect (p=0.01). Glucose values increased in the DM patients during the year following diagnosis, while remaining stable in those without DM. Median follow-up time was 23.2 months. Three-year survival was estimated at 46% for DM patients versus 45% in non-DM pts by Kaplan Meier method (p=0.79). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.57 - 1.94; p=0.88). Three-year relapse-free survival was estimated at 34% for DM patients versus 43% for non-DM patients (p=0.58). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) = 1.10 (95% CI: 0.61–1.98; p=0.76). Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in patients with leukemia. Leukemia and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. This should be reassuring to hematologists and endocrinologists who treat patients with leukemia and diabetes.

Abstract Background: We have previously examined the link between diabetes mellitus (DM) and malignancy with respect to mortality, but little is known about how the cancer affects glycemic control. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate metabolic parameters in patients with cancer with and without DM. Methods: We selected 1404 patients with newly diagnosed prostate, breast, lung, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer from the institutional cancer registry from 2010–2015. Records were selected and matched 2:1 cancer without DM (n=936) and cancer and concurrent DM patients (n=468). Patients were matched by year of diagnosis, age, gender, and cancer type. Metabolic parameters during the year after cancer diagnosis were examined using linear mixed models with fixed effects for time, cancer type, DM status and individual-specific random effect allowing each patient to have a different intercept. Results: Prostate cancer accounted for the majority of cases (n=199), followed by lung cancer (n=91), breast cancer (n=71), colorectal cancer (n=54), and pancreas cancer (n=53). Mean overall hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 6.9 (1.2)%. Pancreas cancer patients had higher HbA1c overall (p=0.02). There was no change in HbA1c one year post cancer diagnosis (p=0.28). Mean glucose in non-DM was 108(18) mg/dL and 146 (45) mg/dL in DM pts. Lung and pancreas cancer patients had higher glucose values overall (p&lt;0.001). Time (p&lt;0.001), DM (p&lt;0.001) and time * DM (p=0.02) were significant in a mixed model. A decrease in glucose over the year was observed in DM patients across all cancer types. Conclusions: A diagnosis of malignancy does not worsen glycemic control within the first year of cancer diagnosis. This should be reassuring to endocrinologists and oncologists who treat patients with DM and cancer. Longer term studies, and analysis in larger and more diverse patients groups are needed.

Objectives: Patients admitted to a medical-surgical unit infrequently require early transfer to higher level care, although how their inpatient length of stay compares to untransferred patients, or those directly admitted to intermediate care, is unknown. We sought to compare the inpatient length of stay of these groups. Design: Single-site retrospective analysis. Setting: An academic hospital specializing in complex care. Patients: We evaluated 23,694 patients admitted to the Hospital Internal Medicine service over a 4-year period (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016). Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Using 6- and 24-hour definitions of early transfer, we categorized patients as admitted to medical-surgical unit without early transfer (medical-surgical unit), transferred (TX) early to higher level care, or initially admitted to an intermediate care unit. We report patient characteristics and inpatient length of stay adjusted for patient demographics (age and sex) and initial acuity (measured by Emergency Severity Index). There were significant increases in both unadjusted inpatient length of stay (6 hr: medical-surgical unit = 73.4 hr, TX = 137.9 hr, intermediate care unit = 101.1 hr; 24 hr: medical-surgical unit = 72.4 hr, TX = 141.9 hr, intermediate care unit = 98.2 hr; p < 0.01 for all groups) and adjusted inpatient length of stay (6-hr definition: medical-surgical unit = 50.9 hr [95% CI, 50.3–51.6 hr], TX = 100.4 hr [90.4–112.0 hr], intermediate care unit = 72.3 hr [70.6–74.0 hr]; 24-hr definition: medical-surgical unit = 50.3 hr [49.7–50.9 hr], TX = 108.3 hr [101.5–116.0 hr], intermediate care unit = 70.7 hr [69.0–72.3 hr]; p < 0.0001 for comparison of TX to medical-surgical unit and intermediate care unit in both groups). The increases in inpatient length of stay for the TX groups were not explained by differences in demographics or acuity. Conclusions: In a single facility study, patients admitted to a medical/surgical unit who require early transfer to intermediate care unit have a significant and unexplained increase in inpatient length of stay. This unexplained increased inpatient length of stay suggests that triage to the appropriate inpatient unit significantly affects inpatient length of stay.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. Conclusion: In this pilot study, the low-volume colon preparation Prepopik® may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.

612 Background: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on survival in neuroendocrine tumor and the impact of neuroendocrine tumor on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed neuroendocrine tumor with and without DM were matched 1:1 according to age, gender, and year of cancer diagnosis (2005-2017). The file was linked to the electronic medical record to obtain information on DM and neuroendocrine tumor therapies and laboratory results. There were 59 matched pairs (total 118 patients) included in the analysis. We compared characteristics between cases and controls and assessed survival with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Mixed models compared hemoglobin A1c and glucose levels over time. Results: Median age of patients at diagnosis was 67 (40-86); 41% had stage IV disease. Women constituted 49% of the study population; 22% had pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and 45% had another GI primary neuroendocrine tumor. No differences in race/ethnicity, marital status, alcohol or tobacco use were detected between cancer patients with and without DM. Mean BMI was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (31.0 [7.90] versus 26.4 [5.27]); p = 0.011. Among those with DM, mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 7.3%. Mean glucose was significantly different between DM (159.1 [43.5] versus non-DM pts 117 [31.5]); p < 0.001. Median follow-up time was 32.8 (2.4-165.4) months in alive patients. Three year survival was estimated at 72% (95% CI: 60-86%) for DM patients versus 80% (95% CI: 70-92%) in non-DM patients by Kaplan Meier method (p = 0.82 log rank test). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) = 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56 – 3.16; p = 0.51). Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in patients with neuroendocrine tumor. Neuroendocrine tumor and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. This should be reassuring to oncologists and endocrinologists who treat patients with neuroendocrine tumors and diabetes.

Background The King-Devick test is a timed rapid number naming task that involves complex cerebral functions. The objective of this pilot exploratory study is to determine whether there is a difference in the King-Devick test during a migraine attack compared to the interictal phase. Methods We evaluated 29 adult subjects with migraine with aura or migraine without aura. For each participant, we performed King-Devick tests during migraine attacks and interictal phases. Subjects served as their own controls. Results The King-Devick test was slower during the migraine attack compared to the interictal baseline (median 4.6 sec slower, p < 0.001). The slowing of the King-Devick test during migraine attack was more prominent in those with migraine with aura compared to subjects with migraine without aura (median 7.5 vs. 2.8 sec, p = 0.028). Conclusions This exploratory, observational study shows changes in the King-Devick test during migraine compared to the interictal phase. Future studies are required to determine if the King-Devick test may be used as a rapid and simple tool to objectively characterize migraine-associated disability.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal colon cleansing regimen protocol for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume solution. Data collection included colon preparation quality based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and a questionnaire given to all subjects, in which we evaluated the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume prep averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (6.6, SD 2.19) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.64. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: Although not statistically significant, a low-volume colon preparation showed a trend of equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison to traditional volume regimens, with less unpleasant taste, which may contribute to better patient compliance and therefore better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

INTRODUCTION: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy since these patients are usually older, less mobile, have more medical comorbidities, and often require emergent evaluation. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was IRB approved and conducted as a pilot study at a Tertiary Referral Medical Center between September 2013 and March 2019. Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high-volume solution (GoLYTELY®, medium-volume solution (MoviPrep®) or a low-volume Prepopik® solution. Adverse effects including unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting were scored through a questionnaire using a five-point scale ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (severe symptoms). Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS) was used to evaluate colon cleanliness. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values ± standard deviation (SD), and P -values were calculated using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Mean age was 66.6 years (16.34) and 68% were male (Table 1). Indications for colonoscopy varied and are shown in Table 1. Total BBPS scores were higher in patients who received Prepopik®, 7.4 (1.62), than GoLYTELY® 6.6 (2.19) or MoviPrep® 6.9 (1.55), P = 0.66 (Figure 1). There was no difference in BBPS in right, transverse, or left colon scores. Regarding tolerance to preparation, 100% of the Prepopik® group reported completing the bowel preparation compared to 77.8% of the GoLYTELY® group and 66.4% of the MoviPrep® group ( P = 0.24). The Prepopik® group reported fewer side effects than GoLYTELY®/MoviPrep® groups (Table 2). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, a low-volume colon preparation demonstrated at least equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison with traditional higher volume regimens, with less adverse effects, and better compliance for cleansing completion. This study suggests small volume purgative may lead to better patient compliance and therefore, better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. The lack of statistical significance is likely due to a type II error. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.