Seegmiller, Sara

Objectives Long-term symptoms following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), termed post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or Long COVID (LC), persist beyond 90 days and may impact at least 10% of patients with acute infection. The exact cause of LC remains unknown, but several theories include persistent viral particles, immune dysfunction, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) imbalance, particularly involving the vagus nerve. Given the role of the vagus nerve in inflammation regulation, vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) is being explored as a treatment option. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and exploratory effects of a handheld external transcutaneous cervical non-invasive VNS (tcVNS) on the primary endpoint of Post-COVID Functional Status (PCFS) grade, alongside secondary outcomes such as LC-related fatigue and other symptoms. Methods Participants from our Post COVID Care Clinic were randomized into treatment (tcVNS treatments two minutes, three times a day) and control (no VNS) groups for a study period of 12 weeks. Participants completed validated questionnaires, PET-CT scans, and inflammatory cytokines at baseline and 12 weeks. Results All randomized patients (8 tcVNS, 10 control) completed the 12-week study. Participants randomized to tcVNS were observed to have improvements in PHQ-9, PROMIS-F, and COMPASS-31 when compared to controls, but these differences were not statistically significant. Cortisol and DHEA were also observed to increase less in the tcVNS group when compared to the control group, but these changes were also not statistically significant. Conclusions tcVNS was well tolerated and may be a promising therapeutic approach for LC, a chronic disease with no approved treatments and very low rates of complete recovery.

A 67-year-old male with positive signals for neuroendocrine and head/neck cancer on a commercially available multicancer detection test underwent an extensive negative diagnostic workup at a local hospital. Referred to our medical center for advanced imaging and endoscopic procedures ultimately led to the diagnosis of an early-stage seminoma with eventual orchiectomy. This case highlights challenges in evaluating positive multicancer detection results, emphasizing the need for a broader understanding of how to interpret these testing results to fully evaluate complex cases, as well as the need for protocolized follow-up approaches to a positive multicancer detection test.

Abstract Background With data demonstrating benefit, the prevalence of home enteral nutrition (HEN) has increased significantly over the last few decades. Despite this increase, there remains a paucity of data regarding real‐world use of HEN including clinical outcomes and complications. Methods Descriptive analysis of prospectively maintained database of our specialized HEN program was undertaken. Patients who received care in our program with HEN initiation date between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included in the analysis. Data regarding demographic information, anthropometrics, enteral nutrition (EN) regimen, electrolytes, and nutrition therapy history were included and tracked until July 31, 2021. Results During the study period, 1600 patients initiated HEN treatment under our care. Majority of the study population needed EN therapy due to malignancy and its complications, including malignant dysphagia or mechanical obstruction (60.6%) followed by neurodegenerative diseases (7.5%). By the end of the study period, a majority of the patients (82%) stopped HEN treatment. Of these, 44.2% achieved EN goals and/or oral autonomy. Patients continued HEN treatment for a median of 100 (interquartile range, 32–301) days. Overall, 53.2% of patients experienced/reported at least one HEN‐related complication that was clinically managed by the HEN team. Complications included tube‐related, enteral feeding intolerance (EFI), and electrolyte shifts. Conclusion In our study population, HEN was most utilized to manage malignancy‐related complications, including dysphagia. Unfortunately, complications, including EFI and tube‐related complications, remained quite prevalent. Further evaluation regarding risk factors for complications and preventive mechanisms, such as increased education, is indicated.

AbstractBackgroundGastrostomy tubes placed radiologically, endoscopically or surgically facilitate long‐term home enteral nutrition (HEN). Patient‐specific clinical factors may affect placement techniques, confounding direct comparisons between radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) outcomes. This study sought to evaluate the differences in clinical outcomes in patients undergoing gastrostomy tube placement by interventional radiologists or gastroenterologists.MethodsA single‐center prospective trial randomizing patients initiating HEN to RIG or PEG was conducted between March 2018 and June 2021. Patients were followed until the time of gastrostomy removal or until 9 months after tube placement. Tracked complications included peritonitis, abscess, bleeding, bowel perforation, and tube occlusion, malposition, or damage. Periprocedural pain rating and quality of life (QoL) surveys were collected.ResultsForty‐two patients were randomized to RIG or PEG. Twenty patients underwent RIG (mean age, 63.0 ± 11.7 years; 85% male; 95% with head and neck cancer) and 22 patients underwent PEG (mean age, 66.3 ± 10.9 years; 81.8% male; 90.9% with head and neck cancer). RIG and PEG groups had 4.18 ± 5.49 and 2.80 ± 5.82 complications per 1000 HEN days, respectively (P = 0.357). The most frequent complications were tube malposition and abscess formation for the RIG and PEG groups, respectively. No major complications occurred in either group. There was no difference in the average of pain ratings in all pain inventory components across both groups. Both groups reported improvement in overall QoL after gastrostomy tube placement (P = 0.532).ConclusionRIG is noninferior to PEG regarding complication rates, pain, and QoL when compared in a prospective randomized fashion.

AbstractEnteral nutrition (EN) is a widely used therapeutic tool to provide nutrition support for patients with various clinical conditions, including different types of cancer. Head and neck cancers, often complicated by dysphagia, are among leading indications for enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) tubes are typically used to deliver EN. This article presents a case report of a young male with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Unfortunately, he developed metastasis of his cancer at the right lateral side of the PEG placement site, requiring surgical resection of seeded growth at the PEG site. This rare complication can be challenging, as it requires a high index of suspicion to diagnose and can potentially limit nutrition support options. A number of theories have been proposed to explain seeding during PEG/PEJ placement, including direct repositioning of malignant cells during instrumentation. A specific placement technique has not been shown to be superior, as seeding was reported with all placement techniques. However, given the lack of statistically powerful studies to describe this entity, there are still gaps we need to explore to better understand seeding of feeding tubes and best practices around diagnosis and early treatment. EN continues to be an important part of caring for patients with cancer during active or palliative treatments. Understanding potential risks in the setting of cancer metastasis is beneficial to the patients and multidisciplinary teams involved. Early recognition of possible seeding of feeding tube sites is necessary to ensure subsequent timely surgical intervention.

AbstractThe home enteral nutrition (HEN) population is a medically diverse group whose number has increased substantially in recent decades. Although medically stable compared with acute care patients requiring nutrition support, HEN population needs are unique and require a team approach to manage nutrition. Frequently encountered issues by the HEN team include mechanical issues of the tube site, gastrointestinal and metabolic problems, and patient preferences regarding tube weaning, formula selection, and compliance. A thorough search of the published literature on how to manage these issues was conducted using scientific healthcare databases with the following inclusion criteria: English only, last 10 years, and reviews and clinical trials. Where appropriate, references from the retrieved articles were hand‐searched for relevant articles older than 10 years and cited in this review. The purpose of this review is to provide the HEN team with strategies to address the top issues of home enteral feeding.

AbstractBackgroundEnteral nutrition (EN) is a safe and cost‐effective intervention with significant morbidity and mortality benefit that can also be associated with complications. Peristomal infections can occur in 5%–30% of cases after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Despite this common occurrence, widespread use of objective diagnostic criteria is not prevalent, possibly leading to overuse of antibiotics.MethodsAll patients who were reporting symptoms consistent with peristomal infection were evaluated. Criteria based on erythema, induration, and exudates were applied with cumulative score ≥8 indicating peristomal infection. All patients were followed, with additional factors being collected if available.ResultsForty‐three patients noted complaints consistent with peristomal infection. In patients with a score <8 (n = 16), only 2 required antibiotics (12.5%) and 1 patient was hospitalized (6.3%). In patients with a score ≥8 (n = 27), 16 had a score of 8 or 9; all patients responded to antibiotics (100%), and 1 was hospitalized (6.3%). In patients with a score ≥10, all (100%) were treated with antibiotics. Five of 11 (45%) patients were hospitalized, with the most common diagnosis being sepsis. Of the baseline variables analyzed, higher body mass index correlated with score ≥10 (26.36 ± 2.94 vs 22.91 ± 4.35 in score <9, P = .0128).ConclusionsObjective criteria were effective in risk stratifying patients who presented with reports of peristomal infection. Patients with a score <8 tended to be at low risk, scores of 8–9 were of moderate risk, and patients with a score ≥10 were at high risk and required very close monitoring or hospitalization.