Citations

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: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

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: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

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.