Tseng, Andrew S.

Abstract Background There is growing interest in the use of rapid blood culture identification (BCID) in antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although many studies have looked at its clinical and economic utility, its comparative utility in gram-positive and gram-negative blood stream infections (BSIs) has not been as well characterized. Methods The study was a quasi-experimental retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. All adult patients with positive blood cultures before BCID implementation (June 2015 to December 2015) and after BCID implementation (June 2016 to December 2016) were included. The outcomes of interest included time to first appropriate antibiotic escalation, time to first appropriate antibiotic de-escalation, time to organism identification, length of stay, infectious diseases consultation, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality. Results In total, 203 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in the time to organism identification between the pre- and post-BCID cohorts (27.1 hours vs 3.3 hours, P < .0001). BCID did not significantly reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation for either gram-positive BSIs (GP-BSIs) or gram-negative BSIs (GN-BSIs). Providers were more likely to escalate antimicrobial therapy in GP-BSIs after gram stain and more likely to de-escalate therapy in GN-BSIs after susceptibilities. Although there were no significant differences in changes in antimicrobial therapy for organism identification by BCID vs traditional methods, more than one-quarter of providers (28.1%) made changes after organism identification. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or in-hospital mortality comparing pre- vs post-BCID. Conclusions Although BCID significantly reduced the time to identification for both GP-BSIs and GN-BSIs, BCID did not reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation and de-escalation.

Abstract Background Patients with postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) often have gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Occasionally, these symptoms can be so severe that nonoral nutrition/hydration support (NONHS), including intravenous fluids (IVFs), enteral nutrition (EN), and parenteral nutrition (PN), becomes necessary. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with POTS at the Mayo Clinic Arizona from January 2010 to January 2017 with a minimum of 6 months of follow up. Demographic information, symptomatology, medications, GI testing, autonomic and autoantibody testing, and healthcare utilization data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Results Three‐hundred thirty‐two patients with POTS were included, of which 32 required NONHS. Patients receiving NONHS were more likely to be female; have lower body mass index; have GI symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation; have abdominal pain; use opiates; have delayed gastric emptying; see more specialists; and be seen in an emergency room or be hospitalized for symptoms. Of these patients, 21 (66%) required IVF, 19 (59%) required EN, and 9 (28%) required PN. Six (19%) patients required all 3 NONHS modalities at some point during their follow‐up period. Conclusions NONHS may be required in a subset of patients with POTS. Those receiving NONHS have more severe symptoms and abnormal GI motility and autonomic testing and exhibit greater healthcare utilization. Management of these patients is complex and challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Further prospective studies are needed to identify optimal management strategies.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) refers to partial or complete occlusion of one or more non-coronary arteries that leads to compromised blood flow and ischemia. Numerous processes are involved in arterial stenosis, however, atherosclerosis remains the most common etiology. PAD constitutes a major health economic problem, and it is estimated that over 200 million people around the world suffer from PAD, with at least 20% having some degree of claudication. The purpose of this review is to compare and contrast the guidelines on PAD published in 2005, 2011 and 2016 in terms of new recommendations and level of evidence for practicing clinicians.

AbstractBackgroundThe use of gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES) in the evaluation of patients with dyspeptic symptoms is controversial. Our aim was to investigate objective and subjective parameters of clinical utility of GES from the perspectives of both the patient and the ordering physician.MethodsSocio‐demographic features, healthcare resource utilization, gastroparetic symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were obtained from consecutive patients referred for GES immediately prior to GES and again 4 months later. The ordering physician received a brief survey 2 weeks after the GES regarding their perceptions on whether the test provided them with clinically useful information.Key ResultsOne hundred and seventy‐two (mean age ± SD 52.0 ± 17.9; 78% female) of 266 patients enrolled completed both the baseline and follow‐up questionnaires and comprised our study population. At baseline, patients with abnormal GES had significantly higher gastroparesis symptom scores and reduced QoL. At the 4‐month follow‐up, an improvement in symptoms and QoL was seen, but the degree of improvement was not significantly different between those with a normal or abnormal GES. One hundred and ninety‐seven ordering physicians completed the survey and perceived that GES, particularly when abnormal, provided new information (91%) and resulted in a change in diagnosis (58%) and management (60%).Conclusions & InferencesAlthough patients with an abnormal GES generally had worse symptoms and lower QoL, the results of GES did not help to identify those with improved or worsened symptoms or QoL at follow‐up. Nevertheless, the ordering physicians generally felt that the results of GES were helpful in managing these patients.

BackgroundPatients with heart failure (HF) have increased risk for thromboembolic events. Real‐world incidences of efficacy and safety outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are of growing clinical interest.HypothesisReal‐world efficacy and safety outcomes of DOACs in patients with LVSD will be similar to those of LVSD or HF subgroups in the RE‐LY, ROCKET‐AF, and ARISTOTLE trials.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of adult patients with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) on DOAC therapy between 2010 and 2016. Incidences of safety and efficacy outcomes of anticoagulation with DOACs were extracted from primary and secondary hospital discharge diagnoses.ResultsDOACs were prescribed to 287 patients with LVSD over a mean follow‐up of 313.3 ± 52.3 days. Many patients had moderate and severe chronic kidney disease (28.9% and 10.1%, respectively) and indications for anticoagulation therapy other than atrial fibrillation (19.9%). For efficacy outcomes, the calculated incidence rates of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism were 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25‐3.56) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.10‐2.94) events per 100 person‐years, respectively. For the safety outcomes, incidence rates of GI bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage were 2.4 (95% CI: 0.8‐5.3) and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.1‐2.2) events per 100 patient‐years, respectively.ConclusionsOur findings are largely compatible with the results of LVSD or HF subgroups in RE‐LY, ROCKET‐AF, and ARISTOTLE trials and add to increasing confidence that DOACs can be safely used for stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with LVSD.