Fall Prevention Initiative: A Fall Screening and Intervention Pilot Study on the Ambulatory Setting

OBJECTIVE: Falling is the most common cause of trauma in the geriatric population. To identify patients that were at-risk for falling, we implemented a provider-directed fall prevention screening initiative in the ambulatory setting of a large tertiary care referral center. We used 3 clinician-directed questions from the STEADI toolkit. Our goal was to intervene on patients who were screened as at-risk for falling by referring them to our physical therapy program and evaluating its effects to these patients. METHOD: Patients ≥ 55 yo who live in the community were screened from 6/2017-6/2018. Patients who answered yes to any of the 3 questions were identified as at-risk for falling, and referred to the Fall Prevention Initiative Physical Therapy Program (FPIPTP). The FPIPTP is a program that establishes a quantifiable fall risk using the Time Up and Go test (TUG), which then initiates PT treatments, designed to prevent future falls by improving, gait, balance, and fitness. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine significance (p\u3c0.05). RESULTS: We identified 112 patients with a median age of 76.5 yo (IQR 68-82) to be at-risk for falling. The initial median TUG score in this group of patients is 15.85 sec (12-20.33), which is consistent with a high fall-risk (time \u3e 12 sec). After completing the FPIPTP, the median TUG score significantly improved to 12sec (9-15, p\u3c0.0001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that a provider can use the 3 specific questions from the STEADI toolkit to identify patients (≥55 yo) that are at-risk for falling. Additionally, the FPIPTP is able to significantly improve the TUG score in this group. We will need to confirm this conclusion with a larger population study. LEVEL IV EVIDENCE: diagnostic/therapeutic study

Acute liver failure complicating jejunojejunal intussusception presentation in a gastric bypass patient

Over 200 000 weight loss procedures are performed annually in the United States. Physicians must therefore be cognizant of the unique array of complications associated with these procedures. We describe a case of jejunojejunal intussusception in a gastric bypass patient who presented with acute liver failure (ALF) due to acetaminophen (APAP) toxicity. Our patient is a 29 year-old female who had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery seven years prior. She was evaluated in the emergency department for confusion. Her family reported a 3-wk history of progressive abdominal pain and vomiting, for which she had ingested 40 acetaminophen/ oxycodone tablets over the past 2 d. Physical examination showed icteric sclerae, a distended abdomen, and grade I encephalopathy. She fulfilled the criteria for ALF and was listed for liver transplantation. Abdominal computed tomography scan revealed a jejunojejunal intussusception. She underwent emergent exploratory laparotomy and resection of the infarcted intussusceptum and the previous jejunojejunostomy. She had rapid clinical improvement, with decreasing liver enzymes and improved hepatic synthetic function. She had complete resolution of coagulopathy and encephalopathy, and was removed from the liver transplant list. She was discharged home 20 d after hospitalization with normal liver tests. This case demonstrates that acute abdominal catastrophes can potentiate liver injury in the setting of acetaminophen toxicity. Encephalopathy may obscure history and physical exam findings. This case also exemplifies the pitfalls in the management of the bariatric surgery patient and the importance of multispecialty collaboration in patients presenting with organ failure. © 2012 Baishideng

Evaluation of phenobarbital based approach in treating patient with alcohol withdrawal syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome (AWS) among patients with chronic and heavy alcohol consumption can range from mild to severe and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Currently, treating AWS with benzodiazepines is the standard of care, but phenobarbital has also been hypothesized to be an effective first-line treatment due to its pharmacological properties and mechanism of action. We conducted a meta-analysis to review relevant literature and compare the clinical outcomes for patients diagnosed with AWS in ED and ICU settings. METHODS: We performed a literature search in in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to June 30, 2022. Randomized trials and observational (prospective or retrospective) studies were eligible if they included adult patients who presented in the ED and were treated in the ED and/or the intensive care unit (ICU) with a diagnosis of AWS. The primary outcome was the rate of intubation among patients who received phenobarbital, compared with benzodiazepines. Secondary outcomes such as rates of seizures, hospital, and ICU length of stay (LOS), also were included. The PROSPERO registration is CRD42022318862. RESULTS: We included twelve studies (1934 patients) in our analysis. Of the 1934 patients in these studies, 765 (41.7%) were treated with phenobarbital and 1169 (58.3%) were treated with other modalities for alcohol withdrawal. Treating AWS patients with phenobarbital did not affect their risk for intubation, as the risk for intubation was similar between the phenobarbital and the control group (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38, P = 0.31). In addition, patients who were treated with phenobarbital were found to have similar rates of seizures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.29-1.89) and length of stay in the hospital (Standardized Mean Difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.26, 0.21) or the ICU (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.21, 0.25) when compared with patients receiving benzodiazepines. CONCLUSIONS: Management of patients with AWS with phenobarbital is associated with similar rates of intubation, length of stay in the ICU, or length of stay in the hospital as treatment with benzodiazepines. However, due to the inclusion of mostly observational studies and a significant level of heterogeneity among the studies assessed in this review, additional trials with strong methodology are needed

Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: A Single Institution Experience

BACKGROUND: Use of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has increased. Despite compelling small studies, many centers still struggle with determining criteria for intervention. We investigated the benefit of SSRF in our patients compared with nonoperative (NonOp) National Trauma Databank (NTDB) controls, specifically in the older population. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective comparison of trauma patients with ≥3 and \u3e5 rib fractures, who underwent SSRF at a tertiary care level I trauma center, with nonoperatively managed NTDB controls from equivalent level I centers between 2007 and 2014. The main outcomes measures included mortality, pneumonia, length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, ventilator use, and tracheostomy rates. RESULTS: Overall, SSRF patients were older, had a higher percentage of respiratory disease, and higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS). Despite more respiratory disease in SSRF patients vs NonOp (p \u3c 0.0001), there was no difference in ventilator usage. Results of SSRF included decreases in mortality (12%, p = 0.008) and pneumonia (13%, p \u3c 0.001) compared with NonOp on propensity score matching. On subgroup analysis of patients 65 years of age or older, ISS was higher in the SSRF group. Mortality was significantly lower for SSRF vs NonOp, even with higher frequency of respiratory disease within the group (p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent SSRF at our institution had improved outcomes despite a higher percentage of respiratory disease, compared with patients who were managed nonoperatively nationwide. Mortality rates improved for patients aged 65 and older, suggesting that this patient population may benefit more from SSRF

Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: A Single Institution Experience

Background: Use of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has increased. Despite compelling small studies, many centers still struggle with determining criteria for intervention. We investigated the benefit of SSRF in our patients compared with nonoperative (NonOp) National Trauma Databank (NTDB) controls, specifically in the older population. Study Design: We performed a retrospective comparison of trauma patients with ≥3 and \u3e5 rib fractures, who underwent SSRF at a tertiary care level I trauma center, with nonoperatively managed NTDB controls from equivalent level I centers between 2007 and 2014. The main outcomes measures included mortality, pneumonia, length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, ventilator use, and tracheostomy rates. Results: Overall, SSRF patients were older, had a higher percentage of respiratory disease, and higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS). Despite more respiratory disease in SSRF patients vs NonOp (p \u3c 0.0001), there was no difference in ventilator usage. Results of SSRF included decreases in mortality (12%, p = 0.008) and pneumonia (13%, p \u3c 0.001) compared with NonOp on propensity score matching. On subgroup analysis of patients 65 years of age or older, ISS was higher in the SSRF group. Mortality was significantly lower for SSRF vs NonOp, even with higher frequency of respiratory disease within the group (p \u3c 0.001). Conclusions: Patients who underwent SSRF at our institution had improved outcomes despite a higher percentage of respiratory disease, compared with patients who were managed nonoperatively nationwide. Mortality rates improved for patients aged 65 and older, suggesting that this patient population may benefit more from SSRF

Fall prevention initiative: A fall screening and intervention pilot study on the ambulatory setting

BACKGROUND Falling is the most common cause of trauma in the geriatric population. To identify patients that were at-risk for falling, we implemented a provider-directed fall prevention screening initiative in the ambulatory setting of a large tertiary care referral center. We used three clinician-directed questions from the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Death and Injuries toolkit. Our goal was to intervene on patients who were screened as at-risk for falling by referring them to our physical therapy program and evaluating its effects to these patients. METHODS Patients 55 years or older who live in the community were screened from June 2017 to June 2018. Patients who answered yes to any of the three questions were identified as at-risk for falling, and referred to the Fall Prevention Initiative Physical Therapy Program (FPIPTP). The FPIPTP is a program that establishes a quantifiable fall risk using the Time Up and Go (TUG) test, which then initiates PT treatments, designed to prevent future falls by improving, gait, balance, and fitness. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine significance (p \u3c 0.05). RESULTS We identified 112 patients with a median age of 76.5 years (IQR, 68-82 years) to be at-risk for falling. The initial median TUG score in this group of patients is 15.85 seconds (12-20.33 seconds), which is consistent with a high fall-risk (time \u3e12 seconds). After completing the FPIPTP, the median TUG score significantly improved to 12 seconds (9-15 seconds, p \u3c 0.0001). CONCLUSION We conclude that a provider can use the three specific questions from the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Death and Injuries toolkit to identify patients (≥55 years) that are at-risk for falling. Additionally, the FPIPTP is able to significantly improve the TUG score in this group. We will need to confirm this conclusion with a larger population study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, Level IV