Citations

Objectives: In the United States, training for physicians who manage critically ill adult patients (intensivists) evolved through parallel subspecialty critical care medicine (CCM) pathways with significant commonality. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force aimed to delineate the common core knowledge and skills required of all intensivists. Design: A master list of content areas and procedural skills was compiled from all CCM subspecialty program requirements and blueprints of the certification examinations. Using a modified Delphi approach, participants were asked to categorize the knowledge items as “advanced knowledge is essential,” “general, but not advanced, knowledge is essential,” or “knowledge is not essential.” Procedures were categorized as “intensivist performs routinely,” “intensivist only performs in an emergency,” or “intensivist knows” about the procedure. Setting: Representatives from CCM stakeholder organizations, including accreditation and certification organizations, critical care societies, and program directors’ societies, were invited to participate. SUBJECTS: Members of the Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: For the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process, Research Electronic Data Capture was used. For the third and fourth rounds, the process was completed through online meetings with Zoom (Zoom Video Corporations, San Jose, CA) utilizing Zoom’s polling feature. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 541 items were determined to be essential, with 145 requiring advanced knowledge and 323 requiring general knowledge. For 73 items, consensus regarding advanced vs. general could not be achieved, but they remained essential. Only eight items were felt to be nonessential. Of the 16 procedures, most were categorized as “intensivist performs.” Conclusions: The large number of items included in the list of essential knowledge and skills demonstrates the complexity of modern CCM. Utilization of a common framework across the subspecialties of CCM could lead to greater harmonization among the fellowship program requirements and certification examinations.

Background: Tremor in multiple sclerosis (MS) is often refractory to medications. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may help, but possible side effects and disease exacerbation limit its use. Objectives: Evaluate outcomes of DBS for MS-associated tremor. Methods: Retrospective review of 18 patients with MS-associated tremor who underwent DBS, analyzing Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Fahn–Tolosa–Marin (FTM) tremor scores. Results: Median age at surgery was 49.5 years (range, 28–75), with postoperative follow-up 2.5 years (range, 0–22). No relapses (0/18) or new lesions (0/8) occurred postoperatively. All had ventral intermediate nucleus leads; other targets were not used in programming. EDSS remained stable (median 6 to 6.25; p = 0.2). FTM scores improved (median 14.5 to 10, p = 0.008). Patients with EDSS 3.5–6 had variable outcomes ( p = 0.02). Conclusions: DBS is a potential treatment for severe MS tremor and did not provoke relapse. Targeting VIM alone may optimize tremor control and maintain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) access.

Background Falls in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) lead to morbidity and expense. Objective Identify clinical metrics associated with falls. Methods Eighty-six pwMS completed fall surveys, timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), and motion analysis with Clario Opal devices. Logistic regression models were created. Results Median age was 54.5 years (range 21–73), 62% (53) were female. The cohort included 58% with relapsing (50) and 42% with progressive MS (36). Those who reported falling in the last year were older (median age 58 vs 52.5, p = .03) and had a higher Patient Determined Disease Step (PDDS) score (median 3 vs 1, p < .0001). Falls were associated with worse balance metrics including sway area (median 2.3 degrees 2 vs 1.2, p = .01), jerk (median 3.3 m 2 /s 5 vs 1.6, p = .005), and slower T25FW (median 11.5 s vs 8; p < .0001). A multivariable regression model based on gait aid use and T25FW time >10.8 s (c = 0.80) was derived. Having both features portended a probability of falling of 0.97, while having neither, a probability of 0.26. Conclusions Falls in pwMS are more frequent in patients who are older, have higher PDDS, slower walking, and worse balance. Gait aid use and T25FW >10.8 s were strongly associated with falls in the past year.

Abstract Spinal cord disease is important in most people with multiple sclerosis, but assessment remains less emphasized in patient care, basic and clinical research and therapeutic trials. The North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Spinal Cord Interest Group was formed to determine and present the contemporary landscape of multiple sclerosis spinal cord evaluation, further existing and advanced spinal cord imaging techniques, and foster collaborative work. Important themes arose: (i) multiple sclerosis spinal cord lesions (differential diagnosis, association with clinical course); (ii) spinal cord radiological–pathological associations; (iii) ‘critical’ spinal cord lesions; (iv) multiple sclerosis topographical model; (v) spinal cord atrophy; and (vi) automated and special imaging techniques. Distinguishing multiple sclerosis from other myelopathic aetiology is increasingly refined by imaging and serological studies. Post-mortem spinal cord findings and MRI pathological correlative studies demonstrate MRI’s high sensitivity in detecting microstructural demyelination and axonal loss. Spinal leptomeninges include immune inflammatory infiltrates, some in B-cell lymphoid-like structures. ‘Critical’ demyelinating lesions along spinal cord corticospinal tracts are anatomically consistent with and may be disproportionately associated with motor progression. Multiple sclerosis topographical model implicates the spinal cord as an area where threshold impairment associates with multiple sclerosis disability. Progressive spinal cord atrophy and ‘silent’ multiple sclerosis progression may be emerging as an important multiple sclerosis prognostic biomarker. Manual atrophy assessment is complicated by rater bias, while automation (e.g. Spinal Cord Toolbox), and artificial intelligence may reduce this. Collaborative research by the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis and similar groups with experts combining distinct strengths is key to advancing assessment and treatment of people with multiple sclerosis spinal cord disease.

Abstract Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic prompted training institutions and national credentialing organizations to administer examinations virtually. This study compared task difficulty, examiner grading, candidate performance, and other psychometric properties between in-person and virtual standardized oral examinations (SOEs) administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology. Method This retrospective study included SOEs administered in person from March 2018 to March 2020 and virtually from December 2020 to November 2021. The in-person and virtual SOEs share the same structure, including 4 tasks of preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, postoperative care, and additional topics. The Many-Facet Rasch Model was used to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and task difficulty for the in-person and virtual SOEs separately; the virtual SOE was equated to the in-person SOE by common examiners and all tasks. The independent-samples and partially overlapping-samples t tests were used to compare candidate performance and examiner grading severity between these 2 formats, respectively. Results In-person (n = 3,462) and virtual (n = 2,959) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race and ethnicity, and whether they were U.S. medical school graduates. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) candidate performance was 2.96 (1.76) logits for the virtual SOE, which was statistically significantly better than that for the in-person SOE (mean [SD], 2.86 [1.75]; Welch independent-samples t test, P = .02); however, the effect size was negligible (Cohen d = 0.06). The difference in the grading severity of examiners who rated the in-person (n = 398; mean [SD], 0.00 [0.73]) versus virtual (n = 341; mean [SD], 0.07 [0.77]) SOE was not statistically significant (Welch partially overlapping-samples t test, P = .07). Conclusions Candidate performance and examiner grading severity were comparable between the in-person and virtual SOEs, supporting the reliability and validity of the virtual oral exam in this large-volume, high-stakes setting.