Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) is a specialty of medicine focused on optimizing function and quality of life for individuals with physical impairments, injuries, or disabling illnesses. Given the sometimes acute nature of the loss of function and even loss of independence, there are significant palliative care (PC) needs within patients seen by PM&R. This article, written by a team of PM&R and PC specialists, aims to help the PC team better understand the world of postacute care, expand their toolkit for treating musculoskeletal and neurological symptoms, improve prognostication for patients with brain and spinal cord injuries, and decide when patients may benefit from PM&R consultation and support. There is significant overlap between the populations treated by PM&R and PC. Better integration between these specialties will help patients to maintain independence as well as advance excellent patient-centered care.

The Use of Ultrasound in Palliative Care and Hospice.

Palliative care aims to reduce symptom burden and enhance quality of life for those with terminal disease. Ultrasound has become an increasingly popular diagnostic and therapeutic modality due to its low cost, ease of portability, safety, and good patient acceptance. A review of the literature to date shows that as a diagnostic tool, as a therapeutic modality, and as a tool to accurately guide palliative procedures, ultrasound can have many roles in palliative care and hospice. Based on our clinical experience, musculoskeletal ultrasound can be of benefit to patients with terminal disease. Examples include adhesive capsulitis in advanced neurologic disease and chronic osteomyelitis in a patient with metastatic colon cancer. Ideally, further studies investigating the use of ultrasound in the palliative care population will be conducted in the future to enhance the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities of this particular modality.

Predicting Heterotopic Ossification Early After Burn Injuries: A Risk Scoring System.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to develop a scoring system that stratifies burn patients at the time of hospital admission according to risk of developing heterotopic ossification (HO). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: HO in burns is an uncommon but severely debilitating problem with a poorly understood mechanism and no fully effective prophylactic measures. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Burn Model System National Database from 1994 to 2010 (n = 3693). The primary outcome is diagnosis of HO at hospital discharge. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine significant demographic and medical predictors of HO. A risk scoring system was created in which point values were assigned to predictive factors and final risk score is correlated with the percent risk of developing HO. The model was internally and externally validated. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects is 42.5 ±â€Š16.0 years, the mean total body surface area (TBSA) burned is 18.5 ±â€Š16.4%, and the population is 74.9% male. TBSA and the need for grafting of the arm, head/neck, and trunk were significant predictors of HO development (P < 0.01). A 13-point risk scoring system was developed using these significant predictors. The model c-statistic is 0.92. The risk scoring system demonstrated evidence of internal and external validity. An online calculator was developed to facilitate translation of knowledge to practice and research. CONCLUSIONS: This HO risk scoring system identifies high-risk burn patients suitable for diagnostic testing and interventional HO prophylaxis trials.

National Trends in the Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) receive either a biventricular pacemaker or a biventricular pacemaker with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D). Optimal device selection remains challenging because the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy may not be uniform, particularly in patients at competing risk of nonsudden death. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this serial cross-sectional study using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified 311,086 admissions associated with CRT implant between 2006 to 2012. CRT-D was the most common device type (86.1%), including in patients ≥ 75 years of age with ≥ 5 Elixhauser comorbidities (75.5%). Multivariate predictors of CRT-D implant included demographic, clinical, and geographic factors: prior ventricular arrhythmia (rate ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.13-1.14), ischemic heart disease (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.11), male sex (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.10), black race (RR, 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04-1.07), and Northeast geographic region (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09). There was significant interhospital variation in the use of CRT-D (10-90 percentile range, 72.9%-98.0% CRT-D). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in this contemporary US cohort underwent implantation of CRT-D. Predictors of CRT-D implant included demographic, clinical, and geographic factors. In patient subgroups predicted to have an attenuated benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy (older adults with multiple comorbidities), CRT-D remained the dominant device type. An improved understanding of the determinants of device selection may aid in decision making and ultimately better align patient risk with device benefit at the time of CRT implantation.