Brain MRI findings in COVID-19 patients with PRES: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Numerous case reports and case series have described brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) findings in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with concurrent posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES). PURPOSE: We aim to compile and analyze brain MRI findings in patients with COVID-19 disease and PRES. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on April 5th, 2021 using the terms "COVID-19", "PRES", "SARS-CoV-2" for peer-reviewed publications describing brain MRI findings in patients 21 years of age or older with evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and PRES. RESULTS: Twenty manuscripts were included in the analysis, which included descriptions of 30 patients. The average age was 57 years old. Twenty-four patients (80%) required mechanical ventilation. On brain MRI examinations, 15 (50%) and 7 (23%) of patients exhibited superimposed foci of hemorrhage and restricted diffusion respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PRES is a potential neurological complication of COVID-19 related disease. COVID-19 patients with PRES may exhibit similar to mildly greater rates of superimposed hemorrhage compared to non-COVID-19 PRES patients.

Routine Opioid Prescriptions Are Not Necessary After Breast Excisional Biopsy or Lumpectomy Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are overprescribed after surgery. In August 2018, the authors replaced routine discharge opioid prescription with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for patients who had a lumpectomy or excisional biopsy (lump/ex). This study compared patient-reported post-discharge pain scores for patients treated before and after the change in routine discharge medication. METHODS: Patients were categorized based on treatment before and after a change in discharge medication as follows: study period 1 (routine opioids), study period 2 (routine NSAID). Pain severity was assessed with an electronic survey on postoperative days (PODs) 1 to 5. Multivariable generalized estimating equations tested the association between pain severity and discharge in the first versus the second study period. RESULTS: Lump/ex was performed for 1606 patients between December 2017 and June 2019. Of these patients, 789 (49%) reported pain scores and were analyzed (328 in study period 1, 461 in study period 2). Opioid prescription at discharge decreased from 96% in period 1 to 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-18%) in period 2. Only 1% of the patients discharged with NSAID were later prescribed an opioid. The maximum reported pain score on any POD for all the patients was severe for 30 patients (3.8%), moderate for 217 patients (28%), mild for 430 patients (54%), and none for 112 patients (14%). The estimated risk for moderate or greater pain on POD 1 was 36% for period 1 and 34% for period 2. The proportion of patients reporting moderate or greater pain was nonsignificantly lower for the patients treated in period 2 (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI 0.67-1.22; P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing lump/ex, a clinically meaningful difference in reported post-discharge pain scores can be excluded with a change to routine NSAID at discharge. Patients undergoing lump/ex should not be routinely discharged with opioids.

Unanticipated Myocarditis in a Surgical Patient Treated With Pembrolizumab: A Case Report.

We report a case of fatal immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated myocarditis in a 77-year-old man with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who presented for mediport placement at our outpatient surgical center. He denied any cardiac complaints and had a previously normal electrocardiogram (EKG) off treatment. Intraoperatively and postoperatively, he displayed cardiac rhythm abnormalities. The patient was then transferred to a tertiary facility, where he expired within 48 hours. As cancer immunotherapy becomes increasingly prominent, ICI-associated myocarditis should be considered a potentially critical contributor to perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality.

Quality of Cancer Surveillance Clinical Practice Guidelines: Specificity and Consistency of Recommendations.

Importance: Primary care clinicians, who are increasingly responsible for caring for the growing population of cancer survivors, may be unfamiliar with appropriate cancer surveillance strategies. Clinical practice guidelines can inform cancer follow-up care and surveillance testing. Vague recommendations and inconsistencies among guidelines can lead to overuse and underuse of health care resources and have a negative impact on cost and quality of survivorship care. Objective: To examine the specificity and consistency of recommendations for surveillance after active treatment across cancer guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national cancer guidelines from North America and Europe published since 2010 addressing posttreatment care for survivors of the 9 most common cancers. We categorized surveillance modalities into history and physical examinations, tumor markers, diagnostic procedures (eg, colonoscopy), and imaging. Within each guideline, we classified individual recommendations into 5 categories: (1) risk-based recommendation, (2) recommendation for surveillance, (3) addressed but no clear recommendation, (4) recommendation against surveillance, or (5) cases in which surveillance was not addressed. We reviewed each surveillance recommendation for frequency and a stop date, evaluated consistency among guidelines, and analyzed associations between the organizations proposing the guidelines and recommendation characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of guideline recommendations for cancer surveillance. Results: We identified 41 guidelines published between January 1, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Eighty-five percent of guidelines (35) were from professional organizations. Ambiguous recommendations (ie, modality not discussed or discussed without a clear recommendation) were present in 83% of guidelines (34), and 44% (18) recommended against at least 1 test. European guidelines were more likely than North American guidelines to contain ambiguous recommendations (100% vs 68%; P < .01). Recommendations commonly specified testing frequency (from 88% [14 of 16] for tumor markers to 92% [24 of 26] for procedures and/or imaging) but infrequently provided a definitive stop time. Cross-sectional imaging recommendations varied among guidelines for each cancer. For example, among breast cancer guidelines, surveillance computed tomographic scans were recommended against in 2, discussed without a clear recommendation in 1, and not addressed in 3 guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance: Guidelines addressing the care of cancer survivors have low specificity and consistency. As guidelines continue to be revised, developers should clarify recommendations with simple, nonambiguous, definitive language for or against the use of specific tests to optimize care quality and resource utilization.