Citations

Objectives Palliative Medicine involvement in MICU patients have improved length of stay and mortality, but with varying effects on specific patient decision outcomes, such as, advance care planning. These studies have utilized Palliative Medicine later in the hospital or ICU course, with some evidence showing that earlier involvement resulted in better results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of early (within 24 hours) palliative care consultation in medical ICU (MICU) patients to clinical and satisfaction outcomes. Methods An unblinded randomized study performed in the MICU in one academic hospital in the USA. Ninety-one adult patients admitted to MICU received a Palliative care medicine consultation within 24 hours as the intervention. Measurements and results Ninety-one patients admitted to the MICU underwent randomization with 50 patients randomly assigned to receive Palliative Medicine consultation and 41 patients randomly assigned to receive standard-of-care based on predefined criteria. The median satisfaction score was 23 points higher for the patients in the intervention group (P < .001). The median length of MICU stay was 5 days shorter in the intervention group compared to the control group (95% CI; 1 day to 18 days, P = .018). Advance care planning was completed in the hospital for 34% of patients in the intervention arm and 12% of patients in the controls arm (absolute risk difference 22%, 95% CI 4% to 37%, P = .016). Conclusion Early Palliative Medicine consultation within 24 hours of MICU admission showed significant benefits to patients by improving satisfaction and decreasing length of stay. This study provides evidence that Palliative Medicine involvement earlier in the course of severe disease is important. Further studies in other types of intensive care units (neurological and Cardiovascular) are necessary to determine their impact.

Once patients are diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension it is important to identify the correct diagnostic group as it will have implications on the disease state management. Pulmonary hypertension is increasingly diagnosed and treated in general medical practices; however, evidence-based guidelines recommend evaluation and treatment in pulmonary hypertension centers for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment recommendations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 509 random patients 18 years and older who were evaluated in our pulmonary hypertension clinic from January 2005 to December 2018. 68.4% (n = 348) had their diagnostic group clarified or changed. Pulmonary hypertension was deemed an incorrect diagnosis in 12.4% (n = 63). A total of 114 patients (22.4%) had been initiated on pulmonary hypertension specific treatment prior to presentation. Pulmonary hypertension specific medication was stopped in 57 (50.0%) cases. The estimated monthly saving of the stopped medication based on wholesale acquisition costs was USD 396,988.05–419,641.05, a monthly saving of USD 6964.70–7362.12 per patient. Evaluation outside of a pulmonary hypertension center may lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate or inadequate treatment. Pulmonary arterial hypertension directed therapy improves median survival, but inappropriate therapy may cause harm; therefore, patients benefit from a specialized center with multiple resources to secure an accurate diagnosis and tailored treatment for their condition.

BACKGROUND: Methacholine bronchoprovocation or challenge testing (MCT) is commonly performed to assess airway hyper-responsiveness in the setting of suspected asthma. Nebulization is an aerosol-generating procedure, but little is known about the risks of MCT in the context of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to quantify and characterize aerosol generation during MCT by using different delivery methods and to assess the impact of adding a viral filter. METHODS: Seven healthy subjects performed simulated MCT in a near particle-free laboratory space with 4 different nebulizers and with a dosimeter. Two devices continuously sampled the ambient air during the procedure, which detected ultrafine particles, from 0.02–1 μm, and particles of sizes 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10 µm, respectively. Particle generation was compared among all the devices, with and without viral filter placement. RESULTS: Ultrafine-particle generation during simulated MCT was significant across all the devices. Ultrafine-particle (0.02–1 μm) concentrations decreased 77%–91% with the addition of a viral filter and varied significantly between unfiltered (P < .001) and filtered devices (P < .001). Ultrafine-particle generation was lowest when using the dosimeter with filtered Hudson nebulizer (1,258 ± 1,644 particle/mL). Ultrafine-particle concentrations with the filtered nebulizer devices using a compressor were higher than particle concentrations detected when using the dosimeter: Monaghan (3,472 ± 1,794 particles/mL), PARI (4,403 ± 2,948), Hudson (6,320 ± 1,787) and AirLife (9,523 ± 5,098). CONCLUSIONS: The high particle concentrations generated during MCT pose significant infection control concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Particle generation during MCT was significantly reduced by using breath-actuated delivery and a viral filter, which offers an effective mitigation strategy.

BACKGROUND: Peak flow testing is a common procedure performed in ambulatory care. There are currently no data regarding aerosol generation during this procedure. Given the ongoing debate regarding the potential for aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we aimed to quantify and characterize aerosol generation during peak flow testing. METHODS: Five healthy volunteers performed peak flow maneuvers in a particle-free laboratory space. Two devices continuously sampled the ambient air during the procedure. One device can detect ultrafine particles 0.02–1 μ m in diameter, while the second device can detect particles 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10 μ m in diameter. Five different peak flow meters were compared to ambient baseline during masked and unmasked tidal breathing. RESULTS: Ultrafine particles (0.02–1 μ m) were generated during peak flow measurement. There was no significant difference in ultrafine particle mean concentration between peak flow meters ( P = .23): Respironics (1.25 ± 0.47 particles/mL), Philips (3.06 ± 1.22), Clement Clarke (3.55 ± 1.22 particles/mL), Respironics Low Range (3.50 ± 1.52 particles/mL), and Monaghan (3.78 ± 1.31 particles/mL). Ultrafine particle mean concentration with peak flow testing was significantly higher than masked (0.22 ± 0.29 particles/mL) and unmasked tidal breathing (0.15 ± 0.18 particles/mL, P = .01), but the ultrafine particle concentrations were small compared to ambient particle concentrations in a pulmonary function testing room (89.9 ± 8.95 particles/mL). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, aerosol generation was present during peak flow testing, but concentrations were small compared to the background particle concentration in the ambient clinical environment. Surgical masks and eye protection are likely sufficient infection control measures during peak expiratory flow testing in asymptomatic patients with well controlled respiratory symptoms, but COVID-19 testing remains prudent in patients with acute respiratory symptoms prior to evaluation and peak expiratory flow assessment while the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 cases remains high.