Simethicone use during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Australia

Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de‐foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high‐standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential.     

Health and economic benefits of advanced pneumatic compression devices in patients with phlebolymphedema

Objective

Phlebolymphedema (chronic venous insufficiency-related lymphedema) is a common and costly condition. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of evidence comparing phlebolymphedema therapeutic interventions. This study sought to examine the medical resource utilization and phlebolymphedema-related cost associated with Flexitouch (FLX; Tactile Medical, Minneapolis, Minn) advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCDs) relative to conservative therapy (CONS) alone, simple pneumatic compression devices (SPCDs), and other APCDs in a representative U.S. population of phlebolymphedema patients.

Multicenter Evaluation of 434 Hospital Deaths From COVID-19: How Can We Improve End-of-Life Care During a Pandemic?

ContextThe pandemic has substantially increased the workload of hospital palliative care providers, requiring them to be responsive and innovative despite limited information on the specific end of life care needs of patients with COVID-19. Multi-site data detailing clinical characteristics of patient deaths from large populations, managed by specialist and generalist palliative care providers are lacking.ObjectivesTo conduct a large multicenter study examining characteristics of COVID-19 hospital deaths and implications for care.MethodsA multi-center retrospective evaluation examined 434 COVID-19 deaths in 5 hospital trusts over the period March 23, 2020 to May 10, 2020.ResultsEighty three percent of patients were over 70.32% were admitted from care homes. Diagnostic timing indicated over 90% of those who died contracted the virus in the community. Dying was recognized in over 90% of patients, with the possibility of dying being identified less than 48 hours from admission for a third. In over a quarter, death occurred less than 24 hours later. Patients who were recognized to be dying more than 72 hours prior to death were most likely to have access to medication for symptom control.ConclusionThis large multicenter study comprehensively describes COVID-19 deaths throughout the hospital setting. Clinicians are alert to and diagnose dying appropriately in most patients. Outcomes could be improved by advance care planning to establish preferences, including whether hospital admission is desirable, and alongside this, support the prompt use of anticipatory subcutaneous medications and syringe drivers if needed. Finally, rapid discharges and direct hospice admissions could better utilize hospice beds and improve care.     

The Effect of Homelessness on Patient Wait Times in the Emergency Department

BackgroundProlonged emergency department (ED) wait times could potentially lead to increased morbidity and mortality. While previous work has demonstrated disparities in wait times associated with race, information about the relationship between experiencing homelessness and ED wait times is lacking.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between residence status (undomiciled vs. domiciled) and ED wait times. We hypothesized that being undomiciled would be associated with longer wait times.MethodsWe obtained data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2014 to 2017. We compared wait times in each triage category using t tests. We used multivariate linear regression to explore associations between residence status and wait times while controlling for other patient- and hospital-level variables.ResultsOn average, undomiciled patients experienced significantly longer mean ED wait times than domiciled patients (53.4 vs. 38.9 min; p < 0.0001). In the multivariate model, undomiciled patients experienced significantly different wait times by 15.5 min (p = 0.0002). Undomiciled patients experienced increasingly longer waits vs. domiciled patients for the emergent and urgent triage categories (+33.5 min, p < 0.0001, and +22.7 min, p < 0.0001, respectively).ConclusionsUndomiciled patients experience longer ED wait times when compared with domiciled patients. This disparity is not explained by undomiciled patients seeking care in the ED for minor illness, because the disparity is more pronounced for urgent and emergent triage categories.     

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Recent Advances and Ongoing Challenges

Locally advanced rectal cancer has a rising global incidence. Over the last 4 decades, advances first in surgery and later in radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy have improved outcomes, particularly with regard to local recurrence. Unfortunately, distant metastases remain a significant problem. In clinical trials of patients with stage II and III disease, distant relapse occurs in 25% to 30% of patients regardless of the treatment approach. Recent phase 3 trials have therefore focused on intensification of systemic therapy for localized disease, with an aim of reducing the distant relapse rate. Early results of trials of total neoadjuvant therapy with combination systemic therapy provided in the neoadjuvant setting are promising; for the first time, a significant improvement in the rate of distant relapse has been noted. Longer-term follow-up is eagerly awaited. On the other hand, trimodal therapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery is toxic. Several trials are currently assessing the feasibility of a watch-and-wait approach, omitting surgery in those with complete response to neoadjuvant treatment, in an attempt to reduce the burden of treatment on patients. The future for rectal cancer patients is likely to be highly personalized, with more intense approaches for high-risk patients and omission of unnecessary therapy for those whose disease responds well to initial treatment. Biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA will help to more accurately stratify patients into risk groups. Improvements in survival and quality of life are expected as the results of ongoing research become available throughout the next decade.