Urinary Retention in a Patient With an Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Case Report of a Rare Cause of Urinary Retention.

Urinary retention is the inability to spontaneously void with lower abdominal or suprapubic pain caused by infection, trauma, obstruction, medications, or neurological etiologies. Acute urinary retention (AUR) is a urological emergency often seen in males presenting to the emergency department (ED). AUR is frequently seen in men over the age of 60 and approximately one-third of men over the age of 80. A 61-year-old Spanish-speaking male, with a history of prostate cancer and prostatectomy with the recent insertion of an artificial urethral sphincter two months prior, presented to the ED with urinary retention, complaining of malfunction in his artificial sphincter with worsening abdominal pain, distention, urinary urgency, and nausea. A bladder scan demonstrated 450 ml of urine. Bedside ultrasound (US) showed moderate bilateral hydronephrosis and hydroureter. After consultation with urology, they revealed that the patient did not understand how to properly use his implanted device. Urology experts have recommended minimal urethral instrumentation in patients with artificial urinary sphincters due to the risk of complications. Although we present a rare cause of urinary retention, emergency physicians should avoid catheterization in these patients. Bedside renal ultrasound is useful for the diagnosis of hydronephrosis and hydroureter and confirmation of pump and balloon placement. We recommend a prompt urology consultation. This case is an important example of appropriate postoperative education and close-ended communication. Certified interpreters should be used to avoid communication barriers and complications.

Overutilization of Helicopter Transport in the Minimally Burned-A Healthcare System Problem That Should Be Corrected.

Eighty-eight percent of all patients burned in North America suffer burns of less than 20% TBSA. These patients may need care at a burn center, but barring any inhalation injury or polytrauma, these patients do not require helicopter transport (HEMS). We sought to identify a cohort of patients suffering smaller burns who do not benefit from HEMS to establish significant health care system savings. A 5-year retrospective analysis of data collected from our trauma registry was performed. Patients were separated into two groups: HEMS and ground transport (EMS). A subanalysis was performed between those with smaller burns (<20% TBSA and no ICU/OR requirement). ED disposition, hospital length of stay, distance transported, and cost was analyzed. Of 616 burn patients presenting to our center, 13% were transported by HEMS, 46% by ambulance, and 61% by private vehicle. Of those transported via HEMS, 38% had been evaluated and treated at an outside hospital before transfer. Patients transported via HEMS had larger burns (13 vs 9 %TBSA; P = .002) and deeper burns (P < .001), longer hospital stays (P = .003), higher ICU admission rates (P < .001), and mortality rates (P = .003) compared with those transported by EMS. Transport distance was a mean 5.5 times greater (88 vs 16 mi) in the HEMS group (P < .001). Within this cohort, 53% of patients transported via HEMS suffered smaller burns, compared with 73% transported by EMS. A subanalysis of the smaller burns cohort showed increased distances of transport via HEMS (91 vs 18 mi; P < .001) and increased rates of admission from the ED in the EMS group (93% vs 68% by HEMS; P = .005), yet no difference in length of stay, or rates of early discharge, defined as <24-hour hospital stay. Fully 1/4 of those transported via HEMS with smaller burns were discharged from the ED after burn consultation, debridement, and dressing. Mortality in both was nil. Average cost per helicopter transport was US$29K. Accurate triage and burn center consultation before scene transport or hospital transfer could help identify patients not benefiting from HEMS yet safely transferrable by ground, or better served by early clinic follow-up, which would reduce cost without compromising care in this cohort. Annual patient savings approximating US$444K could be multiplied were non-HEMS transport universally adopted for smaller burns.

Belinostat and vincristine demonstrate mutually synergistic cytotoxicity associated with mitotic arrest and inhibition of polyploidy in a preclinical model of aggressive diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive malignancy that has a 60 percent 5-year survival rate, highlighting a need for new therapeutic approaches. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) are novel therapeutics being clinically-evaluated in combination with a variety of other drugs. However, rational selection of companion therapeutics for HDACi is difficult due to their poorly-understood, cell-type specific mechanisms of action. To address this, we developed a pre-clinical model system of sensitivity and resistance to the HDACi belinostat using DLBCL cell lines. In the current study, we demonstrate that cell lines sensitive to the cytotoxic effects of HDACi undergo early mitotic arrest prior to apoptosis. In contrast, HDACi-resistant cell lines complete mitosis after a short delay and arrest in G1. To force mitotic arrest in HDACi-resistant cell lines, we used low dose vincristine or paclitaxel in combination with belinostat and observed synergistic cytotoxicity. Belinostat curtails vincristine-induced mitotic arrest and triggers a strong apoptotic response associated with downregulated MCL-1 expression and upregulated BIM expression. Resistance to microtubule targeting agents (MTAs) has been associated with their propensity to induce polyploidy and thereby increase the probability of genomic instability that enables cancer progression. Co-treatment with belinostat effectively eliminated a vincristine-induced, actively cycling polyploid cell population. Our study demonstrates that vincristine sensitizes DLBCL cells to the cytotoxic effects of belinostat and that belinostat prevents polyploidy that could cause vincristine resistance. Our findings provide a rationale for using low dose MTAs in conjunction with HDACi as a potential therapeutic strategy for treatment of aggressive DLBCL.