Incorporation of a patient navigator into a secondary fracture prevention program identifies barriers to patient care.

INTRODUCTION: Patient navigation improves outcomes in various clinical contexts, but has not been evaluated in secondary fracture prevention. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients, age 50 + from April to October, 2016 hospitalized with fragility fracture contacted by a patient navigator. Patients were identified using an electronic tool extracting data from electronic medical records which alerted the patient navigator to contact patients by phone post-discharge to schedule appointments to "High-Risk Osteoporosis Clinic" (HiROC) and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scan. Primary outcome was transition from hospital to HiROC. We also compared completion of DXA, five osteoporosis-associated in-hospital laboratory tests (calcium, 25-hydroxy vitamin D, complete blood count, renal, and liver function), osteoporosis medication prescription and adherence, and other patient characteristics to historical controls (2014-2015) without patient navigation. Comparisons were made using Chi-square, Fisher's Exact, two-sample t test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The proportion of patients transitioning to HiROC with and without patient navigation was not different (53% vs. 48%, p = 0.483), but DXA scan completion was higher (90% vs. 67%, p = 0.006). No difference in medication initiation within 3 months post discharge (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.387) or adherence at 6 months (68% vs. 71%, p = 0.777) was found. Patients attending HiROC lived closer (11 vs. 43 miles, p < 0.001) and more likely to follow-up in surgery clinic (95% vs. 61%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient navigation did not improve transition to HiROC. Longer travel distance may be a barrier-unaffected by patient navigation. Identifying barriers may inform best practices for Fracture Liaison Service programs.

Distal Radial and Ulnar Arteries: the Alternative Forearm Access.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Radial artery access for catheter-based procedures has demonstrated improved margins of safety and patient comfort without a loss of efficacy compared with femoral access. Unfortunately, radial access is not always available, so a review of the alternatives such as the ulnar artery and distal radial artery has been completed to understand alternative access sites that may preserve the benefits of distal forearm access without losing the efficacy of traditional transradial access. RECENT FINDINGS: Several different trials have demonstrated the utility of ulnar access as a possible workhorse access point. These suggest efficacy and safety, but inferior ease-of-access and more crossover than traditional radial access exists. Distal (dorsal) radial access has also been shown to have reasonable efficacy and offer some ergonomic advantages, but this comes at the price that 20-30% of all comers may not have a sufficiently large artery to use. Understanding the anatomy and techniques required to access the non-traditional, distal forearm arteries increases the skill set of operators. While neither the ulnar nor distal radial appears to substitute completely for radial access, both have potential applications that should be considered, and their utility should not be ignored.

The effect of establishing pre-angiography thresholds on contrast utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Contrast induced nephropathy is linked to contrast utilization and strategies for minimizing renal injury are incorporated into many laboratories that perform coronary angiography. Contrast limits have been described, below which there is minimal incremental increase in the risk of renal injury. Whether a priori acknowledgement of these limits as part of a contrast "Time-Out" reduces contrast utilization has not been established. In this study, we investigate the effect of verbalizing pre-angiography and ½ time contrast thresholds on contrast utilization and associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 5265 cases of coronary angiography (984 with contrast thresholds defined pre-procedure compared to 4281 without pre-defined contrast thresholds). There were two primary endpoints: (1) proportion of procedures that utilized an amount of contrast ≤ threshold, and (2) median difference between amount of contrast utilized and the contrast threshold. Secondary outcomes incorporated indices of renal function, and included changes in serum creatinine levels, eGFR, and CKD stage. RESULTS: Compared to pre-"Time-Out" group, the post-"Time-Out" group had a higher proportion of procedures with contrast ≤ stated contrast threshold (88% vs 84%, P < 0.002), and a lower amount of total contrast volume (88 mL [IQR 60-136] versus 78 mL [IQR 53-119]). The post-"Time-Out" group also had a lower incidence of any increase in post-procedure serum creatinine (45% vs 36%; P = 0.04), and a larger median decrease of pre- to post-procedure eGFR (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Acknowledgement of contrast threshold as part of a contrast "Time-Out" is associated with reduced overall contrast utilization, and likely minimizes risks of contrast-induced nephropathy.