Virtual reality for pain management in hospitalized patients with cancer: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with cancer often experience acute and/or chronic pain. Although virtual reality (VR) has been extensively studied across a wide range of clinical settings, no studies have yet evaluated potential impact on pain management in this patient population. METHODS: Prospective randomized controlled trial at an urban academic hospital comparing VR against an active control to mitigate moderate-severe cancer disease and treatment-related pain. RESULTS: A total of 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer (any tumor type) were randomized to 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy delivered by handheld tablet. Participants in the two arms were similar in age, sex, race, presence of metastatic disease, concurrent pain specialist consultation, and baseline opioid use. Although both groups experienced improved self-reported pain scores (primary outcome), those randomized to VR experienced significantly greater reduction in pain immediately after intervention compared with active control (p = .03). This difference was sustained for 24 hours as well (p = .004). Within-group analysis showed significant improvement in VR arm of pain bothersomeness (p = .05) and general distress (p = .03) as well. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized adult patients with moderate-severe pain related to cancer and cancer therapies, VR provided more nonpharmacologic pain relief than active control and this benefit sustained long after conclusion of the intervention. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Virtual reality (VR), a developing technology that immerses the user in new environments, has been shown to improve pain in different patient populations. To test the role of VR in improving pain in hospitalized patients with cancer who report moderate-severe pain, we compared the impact of a 10-minute immersive VR intervention to that of a 10-minute two-dimensional guided imagery experience to improve self-reported pain scores. We found that, although both interventions improved pain, VR did so significantly more. Moreover, participants assigned to VR had sustained improvement in pain 24 hours later.

Benefits and Harms of Continuous Intravenous Inotropic Support as Palliative Therapy: A Single-Institution, Retrospective Analysis.

Use of continuous intravenous inotropic support (CIIS) strictly as palliative therapy for patients with ACC/AHA Stage D (end-stage) Heart Failure (HF) has increased significantly. The harms of CIIS therapy may detract from its benefits. To describe benefits (improvement in NYHA functional class) and harms (infection, hospitalization, days-spent-in-hospital) of CIIS as palliative therapy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with end-stage HF initiated on CIIS as palliative therapy at an urban, academic center in the United States between 2014-2016. Clinical outcomes were extracted, and data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Seventy-five patients, 72% male, 69% African American/Black, with a mean age 64.5 years (SD = 14.5) met study criteria. Mean duration of CIIS was 6.5 months (SD = 7.7). Most patients (69.3%) experienced improvement in NYHA functional class from class IV to class III. Sixty-seven patients (89.3%) were hospitalized during their time on CIIS, with a mean of 2.7 hospitalizations per patient (SD = 3.3). One-third of patients (n = 25) required at least one intensive care unit (ICU) admission while on CIIS therapy. Eleven patients (14.7%) experienced catheter-related blood stream infection. Patients spent an average of 20.6% (SD = 22.8), approximately 40 days, of their time on CIIS admitted to the study institution. Patients on CIIS as palliative therapy report improvement in functional class, survive 6.5 months following initiation, but spend a significant number of days in the hospital. Prospective studies quantifying the symptomatic benefit and the direct and indirect harms of CIIS as palliative therapy are warranted.

Clinical Protocol for Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation at End of Life.

As patients live longer with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, many will either suffer an acute event or develop a gradual, progressive disease that results in a terminal prognosis. At the end-of-life, patients, and more often, their families, will be faced with the decision to deactivate the LVAD to allow natural death. The process of LVAD deactivation carries some distinct features that distinguish it from withdrawal of other forms of life-sustaining medical technology: multidisciplinary collaboration is paramount; prognosis after deactivation is short, typically minutes-hours; and premedication doses of symptom-focused medications are typically higher than other situations involving withdrawal of life-sustaining medical technologies given the precipitous decline in cardiac output following LVAD deactivation. In this Case Discussion, we introduce the complexity of planned in-hospital LVAD deactivation through a clinical case, share our detailed institutional checklist and order set for LVAD deactivation, and broach multidisciplinary clinical protocol development processes.