Can the Charlson Comorbidity Index be used to predict the ASA grade in patients undergoing spine surgery?

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Anaesthesiologists' Physical Status Score (ASA) is a key variable in predictor models of surgical outcome and "appropriate use criteria". However, at the time when such tools are being used in decision-making, the ASA rating is typically unknown. We evaluated whether the ASA class could be predicted statistically from Charlson Comorbidy Index (CCI) scores and simple demographic variables.

METHODS

Using established algorithms, the CCI was calculated from the ICD-10 comorbidity codes of 11'523 spine surgery patients (62.3 ± 14.6y) who also had anaesthetist-assigned ASA scores. These were randomly split into training (N = 8078) and test (N = 3445) samples. A logistic regression model was built based on the training sample and used to predict ASA scores for the test sample and for temporal (N = 341) and external validation (N = 171) samples.

RESULTS

In a simple model with just CCI predicting ASA, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis revealed a cut-off of CCI ≥ 1 discriminated best between being ASA ≥ 3 versus < 3 (area under the curve (AUC), 0.70 ± 0.01, 95%CI,0.82-0.84). Multiple logistic regression analyses including age, sex, smoking, and BMI in addition to CCI gave better predictions of ASA (Nagelkerke's pseudo-R² for predicting ASA class 1 to 4, 46.6%; for predicting ASA ≥ 3 vs.  < 3, 37.5%). AUCs for discriminating ASA ≥ 3 versus < 3 from multiple logistic regression were 0.83 ± 0.01 (95%CI, 0.82-0.84) for the training sample and 0.82 ± 0.01 (95%CI, 0.81-0.84), 0.85 ± 0.02 (95%CI, 0.80-0.89), and 0.77 ± 0.04 (95%CI,0.69-0.84) for the test, temporal and external validation samples, respectively. Calibration was adequate in all validation samples.

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to predict ASA from CCI. In a simple model, CCI ≥ 1 best distinguished between ASA ≥ 3 and < 3. For a more precise prediction, regression algorithms were created based on CCI and simple demographic variables obtainable from patient interview. The availability of such algorithms may widen the utility of decision aids that rely on the ASA, where the latter is not readily available.

AB0283 REDUCED HOSPITAL ADMISSION IN RA PATIENTS TAPERING BIOLOGIC DMARDS: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Background:

bDMARDs are among the most effective therapies in the management of inflammatory arthritides, but they are associated with potentially severe adverse events (AEs), particularly infection. Tapering strategies of bDMARDs for patients in remission/low disease activity (R/LDA) have demonstrated comparable efficacy to standard-dose treatments, but their safety profile has not been studied yet.

Objectives:

To compare the number and the causes of hospital admissions in RA patients in R/LDA continuing or tapering bDMARDs.

Methods:

Consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) evaluated between 2011 and 2017, were assigned, based on treating physician’s discretion, to continue the standard dose (STD) of bDMARDs or to undergo a predetermined tapering strategy (TAP), after being in R/LDA for two consecutive visits at least 3 months apart. Down-titration of bDMARDs was obtained by a stepwise increase of the dosing interval to achieve a reduction of about 30% (e.g. administration of etanercept every 10 days instead of weekly). Demographic, clinical data and concomitant treatments were retrospectively retrieved from the electronic charts of the outpatient clinics. Information about hospital admissions, including main diagnosis, period and duration of hospitalization, and death were retrieved from the Regional Healthcare System Database.

For the STD group, the observation period started with the occurrence of remission and finished with one of these events: loss of remission, switch to another bDMARD, withdrawal of the bDMARD, severe AE, death, end of the study period in (December 2017). For the TAP group, the observation period started with tapering onset and finished with one of these events: reduction of the dosing interval due to either a relapse (according to a DAS28 increase) or to a subjective, symptomatic relapse (according to the patient’s definition), switch to another bDMARD, withdrawal of the bDMARD, severe AE, death, end of the study period in (December 2017).

Results:

81 patients were included, of whom 40 underwent TAP. Demographic, clinical and treatment data are shown in table 1. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the number of previous bDMARDs before observational period entry that was slightly higher in the STD group (STD 1.0±0.9 versus TAP 0.5±0.8, P=0.11).

Table 1.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients in remission or low disease activity.

NO TAPERING(n=41)TAPERING(n=40)p valueMean age (yrs)57±1158±130.563Mean disease duration (yrs)12±912±70.897Starting bDMARD to tapering/monitoring (months)52±4567±410.128Mean monitoring period (months)22±2419±230.632Taking sDMARD at any time ((n (%))40 (98%)37 (92%)0.359Taking glucocorticoids29 (71%)28 (70%)0.999Mean prednisone dose (mg/day)2.5±2.92.1±2.70.527DAS28 at the time of tapering or first LDA/REM2.3±0.82.3±0.90.863Previous bDMARDs >1 (n (%))10 (24.4%)4 (10%)0.140

In the STD group, 14 hospital admissions occurred, while in the TAP group there were 7 admissions (p=0.128). The corresponding figures for hospital admission due to infectious diseases were 6 in the STD group and 0 in the TAP group (p=0.026).

Conclusion:

Tapering bDMARDs in RA patients in R/LDA is associated with fewer hospital admissions, with a possible protective effect especially toward infections.

Acknowledgments:

The authors are indebted with Mrs Rosella Gramuglia and Mrs Cristina Olivieri for the management and analysis of the data on the flow of the drugs, and with Mrs Anna Consigliere, Mrs Anna Cosso, Mrs Romina Petralito and Mrs Laura Ravaschio for helping in retrieving clinical data.

Disclosure of Interests:

Dario Camellino Consultant of: I have received consultancy fees from Celgene, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Accord, Paid instructor for: I have served as a paid instructor for Mylan, Andrea Giusti Consultant of: UCB, Amgen, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Abiogen, EffRx, Speakers bureau: UCB, Amgen, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Abiogen, EffRx, Alfa-Sigma, Chiesi, Giuseppe Girasole: None declared, Chiara Craviotto: None declared, Paola Diana: None declared, Antonia Locaputo: None declared, Tiziana Caviglia: None declared, Lacramioara Luca: None declared, Gerolamo Bianchi Consultant of: Amgen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Abiogen, Alfa-Sigma, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, UCB

AB1082 INFLUENCE OF THE VARIATION OF THE OPERATOR, PATIENT POSITION AND DEVICE ON THE MEASUREMENT PERFORMANCE OF RADIOFREQUENCY ECHOGRAPHIC MULTI SPECTROMETRY (REMS)

Background:

The monitoring of bone mineral density (BMD) is a key aspect for patients undergoing pharmacological treatments that might cause BMD changes at non-physiological rates. At present, the short-term follow-up of patients under treatment in terms of BMD change with time remains an unmet clinical need, since the current techniques, including the gold standard dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), require at least 1 year between two consecutive measurements [1]. Therefore, an effective strategy for the assessment of BMD should guarantee high accuracy, precision and repeatability of the measurements.

Objectives:

The aim is to assess the influence of the variation 1) in patient position, 2) operator (both intra- and inter-) and 3) device on the REMS performance at lumbar spine and femoral neck.

Methods:

210 women were enrolled, divided in 7 groups of 30-patient each for the assessment of the parameters of interest, i.e. inter-device, intra- and inter-operator repeatability for lumbar spine scans and inter-patient position, inter-device, intra- and inter-operator repeatability for femoral neck scans.

All patients underwent 2 REMS scans at lumbar spine or femoral neck, performed by the same operator or by 2 different operators or by the same operator using 2 different devices or in different patient position (i.e. supine without constraints or with a constrained 25°-rotation of the leg). The percentage coefficient of variation (CV%) with 95% confidence interval and least significant change for a 95% confidence level (LSC) have been calculated.

Results:

For lumbar spine, intra-operator repeatability resulted in CV%=0.37% (95%CI: 0.26%-0.48%), with LSC=1.02%, inter-operator repeatability resulted in CV%=0.55% (95% CI: 0.42%-0.68%), with LSC=1.52%, inter-device repeatability resulted in CV%=0.53% (95% CI: 0.40%-0.66%), with LSC=1.47%.

For femoral neck, intra-operator repeatability resulted in CV%=0.33% (95%CI: 0.23%-0.43%), with LSC=0.91%, inter-operator repeatability resulted in CV%=0.47% (95% CI: 0.35%-0.59%), with LSC=1.30%, inter-device repeatability resulted in CV%=0.42% (95% CI: 0.30%-0.51%), with LSC=1.16%, inter-patient position repeatability resulted in CV%=0.24% (95% CI: 0.18%-0.30%), with LSC=0.66%.

Conclusion:

REMS densitometry is highly precise for both anatomical sites, showing high performance in repeatability. These results suggest that REMS might be a suitable technology for short-term monitoring. Moreover, thanks to its ionizing radiation-free approach, it might be applied for population mass investigations and prevention programs also in paediatric patients and pregnant women.

References:

Note:Carla Caffarelli, Giovanni Adami§, Giovanni Arioli§, Gerolamo Bianchi§, Maria Luisa Brandi§, Sergio Casciaro§, Luisella Cianferotti§, Delia Ciardo§, Francesco Conversano§, Davide Gatti§, Giuseppe Girasole§, Monica Manfredini§, Maurizio Muratore§, Paola Pisani§, Eugenio Quarta§, Laura Quarta§, Stefano Gonnelli

§Equal contributors listed in alphabetical order

Disclosure of Interests:

Carla Caffarelli: None declared, Giovanni Adami: None declared, Giovanni Arioli *: None declared, Gerolamo Bianchi Grant/research support from: Celgene, Consultant of: Amgen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Abiogen, Alfa-Sigma, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, UCB, Maria Luisa Brandi: None declared, Sergio Casciaro: None declared, Luisella Cianferotti: None declared, Delia Ciardo: None declared, Francesco Conversano: None declared, Davide Gatti Speakers bureau: Davide Gatti reports personal fees from Abiogen, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Mundipharma, outside the submitted work., Giuseppe Girasole: None declared, Monica Manfedini: None declared, Maurizio Muratore: None declared, Paola Pisani: None declared, Eugenio Quarta: None declared, Laura Quarta: None declared, Stefano Gonnelli: None declared

SAT0455 RADIOFREQUENCY ECHOGRAPHIC MULTI SPECTROMETRY (REMS) FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF FRAIL BONES

Background:

Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) is the first clinically available approach for direct non-ionizing measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN). Available scientific evidences describe BMD estimated by REMS as an accurate parameter for the diagnosis of osteoporosis [1].

Objectives:

To investigate the effectiveness of the T-score values provided by REMS scans at FN and LS in the identification of frail patients at risk for osteoporotic fractures and to compare the performance of REMS with the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) one.

Methods:

The patients underwent DXA and REMS scans at FN and at LS. Five clusters of fractures occurred during a median 3.5-year follow-up were identified whether involving the upper limb (forearm, elbow, humerus, wrist, hand), lower limb (tibia, ankle, metatarsus), thorax (shoulder blade, shoulder, rib), hip (femur or pelvis bones), or vertebrae. The ability of REMS and DXA T-score values to assess the incidence and site of fractures was evaluated through an analysis of covariance.

Results:

Seven hundred twenty-one Caucasian women were enrolled. Ninety-five fractures occurred, in particular 41 at upper limb, 16 at hip, 15 at thorax, 14 at lower limb, 9 at vertebrae. Patients characteristics are reported in table. Considering subcategories of fractured patients, there were not statistically significant differences for age, height, weight and BMI.

In the analysis of covariance including age and BMI as covariates, the difference of T-score values between fractured and non-fractured patients is statistically significant for REMS and DXA at both sites.

Lower FN T-score values were found for patients with fractures at hip or vertebra with respect to non-fractured patients both for REMS and DXA (p<0.001). Considering LS T-score, lower values were found for patients with fractures at hip, vertebra or upper limb with respect to non-fractured patients both for REMS and DXA (p<0.001, Figure).

Conclusion:

REMS T-score measured at axial sites is an effective parameter for identification of patients at the risk of incident fragility fractures, in particular occurring at hip, vertebra or upper limb in a population-based sample of female subjects.

References:

[1]Diez-Perez, Aging Clin Exp Res 2019;31(10):1375–89

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics, expressed as median (25th– 75thpercentiles).

Patients with incident fragility fracturePatients without incident fragility fracturep-value*Age [years]70 (60-73)59 (54-64)<0.001Height [cm]159 (155-164)160 (156-165)0.08Weight [kg]63 (58-70)62 (57-69)0.42BMI [kg/m2]24.97 (23.13-26.86)24.24 (22.22-26.59)0.04FN REMS T-score-2.3 (-2.8 – -1.7)-1.8 (-2.3 – -1.1)<0.001FN DXA T-score-2.2 (-2.8 – -1.6)-1.7 (-2.3 – -1.1)<0.001LS REMS T-score-3.0 (-3.5 – -2.0)-2.0 (-2.8 – -1.0)<0.001LS DXA T-score-2.8 (-3.4 – -1.8)-1.9 (-2.7 – -1.0)<0.001

* Wilcoxon ranksum test

Figure.

Boxplot of the distribution of T-score values estimated REMS and DXA at FN and LS among patients without incident fragility fracture and patients with incident fragility fractures at different sites.

Note:G. Adami, G. Arioli§, G. Bianchi§, M.L. Brandi§, C. Caffarelli§, L. Cianferotti§, G. Girasole§, S. Gonnelli§, M. Manfredini§, M. Muratore§, E. Quarta§, L. Quarta§, D. Gatti§ equal contributors listed in alphabetical order.

Disclosure of Interests:

Giovanni Adami: None declared, Giovanni Arioli *: None declared, Gerolamo Bianchi Grant/research support from: Celgene, Consultant of: Amgen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Abiogen, Alfa-Sigma, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, UCB, Maria Luisa Brandi: None declared, Carla Caffarelli: None declared, Luisella Cianferotti: None declared, Giuseppe Girasole: None declared, Stefano Gonnelli: None declared, Monica Manfedini: None declared, Maurizio Muratore: None declared, Eugenio Quarta: None declared, Laura Quarta: None declared, Davide Gatti Speakers bureau: Davide Gatti reports personal fees from Abiogen, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Mundipharma, outside the submitted work.

AB0681 COMPARISON BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PREDOMINANT AXIAL VS MAINLY PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS (SpA) PATIENTS, ENROLLED IN THE ONGOING SIRENA STUDY

Background:

SIRENA is an Italian, prospective Registry in Spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients, naïve to conventional, targeted and biological DMARDs. Patients are diagnosed, newly or confirmed, according to ASAS criteria and classified in subjects with predominant axial(AX) or with mainly peripheral manifestations(PER).

Objectives:

To compare descriptively AX vs PER subgroups of patients.

Methods:

Demographic data, diagnostic delay and subtypes of SpA as well as clinical features and comorbidities are collected.

Results:

282 patients were enrolled: 101 (35.8%) AX and 181 (64.2%) PER. Baseline data are shown in Table 1. There were more obese patients in AX (21.4% AX vs 16.1% PER) and more overweight ones in PER (19.4% AX vs 23.8% PER). The % of subjects with diagnostic delay was higher in AX (65.7% vs 53.9% PER) and the delay longer (mean of 73.1 months vs 47.8). In both groups, main reason of the delay was incorrect referrals (41.5% for AX and 45.3% for PER). Noteworthy the fact that in PER, the 75.7% of patients had a newly diagnosed SpA. In PER, the most frequent SpA type was PsA (82.3%), followed by undifferentiated SpA (8.8%) and enteropathic SpA (7.5%), while in AX, 49.5% were ankylosing spondylitis, 21.8% nr-ax-SpA and only 4% PsA. The majority of PER patients reported as first symptom peripheral arthritis (80/181), psoriasis (57/181) and enthesitis while in AX referred inflammatory back pain (80/101). High percentages of comorbidities were reported: psoriasis (65.8%) and cardiometabolic diseases (34.8%) were higher in PER while depression/anxiety and GI diseases were higher in AX (Table 2). At the baseline, the mean PhGA score (0-100) was 51.5 for AX and 43.8 for PER.

Conclusion:

SIRENA study highlights relevant differences in AX vs PER patients, expecially in terms of diagnostic delay, clinical presentation and comorbidities.

Table 1.MeanAX n=101MeanPER n=181Age (years)47.352.8Sex (female/male - %)50.5/49.547.5/52.5Weight (Kg)73.073.9BMI25.325.4Diagnostic Delay (yes - %)65.7%53.9%Time of delay (mean - months)71.347.8Newly SpA diagnosis (%)55.5%75.7%Table 2.A) First Symptom(more than 1 symptom referred)AX n=101N. PatientsPER n=181N. PatientsArthritis23122Enthesitis1654Dactylitis728Inflammatory Back Pain8034Psoriasis skin1057Psoriasis nails219Uveitis41IBD79B) Comorbidities(more than 1 comorbidity referred)% Patients% PatientsCardiometabolic20.8%34.8% -Hypertension19.8%30.9% -Dyslipidemia17.8%11.6% -Diabetes6.0%7.7% -MetS5.0%6.6%Psoriasis22.8%65.8%Gastrointestinal20.8 (16.9% CD)12.8 (4.4% CD)Depression/Anxiety11.9%2.2%Endocrine6.9%11.1%Osteoporosis3%5.5%Hepatic4% (3% NAFLD)4.4% (2.2% NAFLD)Infections3%3.9%Malignancies0%4.4%

Acknowledgments:

This study was sponsored by Janssen Italy.

We thank the Investigators and their staff at all of the study sites.

Disclosure of Interests:

Rosario Foti Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, ROCHE, Janssen, Celgene, Gabriella Cardinale: None declared, Luisa Costa: None declared, Franco Franceschini Consultant of: Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB Pharma, GSK, Francesco Ciccia Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, Janssen, Consultant of: Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Celgene, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Abiogen, BMS, Antonio Marchesoni Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Giuliana Guggino Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Celgene, Speakers bureau: Celgene, Sandoz, Pfizer, Maurizio Rossini Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abiogen, Amgen, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sandoz and UCB, Ennio Lubrano: None declared, Mauro Galeazzi: None declared, Mariasole Chimenti: None declared, Gerolamo Bianchi Grant/research support from: Celgene, Consultant of: Amgen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Abiogen, Alfa-Sigma, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, UCB, Giuseppe Galfo: None declared, Silvia Marelli Employee of: Janssen, Ennio Favalli Speakers bureau: BMS, Eli-Lilly, MSD, UCB, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis and Abbvie

AB0958 LOW-ENERGY PULSED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD THERAPY REDUCES PAIN IN FIBROMYALGIA: A RANDOMIZED SINGLE-BLIND CONTROLLED PILOT STUDY

Background:

Fibromyalgia is a clinical condition characterized by diffuse chronic muscle-skeletal pain, fatigue, sleep/mood disorders and muscular stiffness. The pathogenesis of fibromyalgia remains poorly understood but numerous lines of evidence suggest a role for alterations of both the central and peripheral nervous systems leading to heightened pain sensitivity along with acorollariumof other symptoms1. Low-energy pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) has promising data in the prevention of falls in senior individuals and is believed to promote osteogenesis and angiogenesis thus proving promising to treat bone diseases with chronic pain2. No data is available in fibromyalgia.

Objectives:

To investigate the efficacy and safety of PEMF on fibromyalgia symptoms in a randomized single-blind pilot study.

Methods:

We enrolled 21 women (median age 59 years, IQR 16,5) affected by fibromyalgia according to the 2010 ACR classification criteria3not receiving chronic medical treatment for pain; patients were randomly allocated to receive PEMF TEPT (triple energy pain treatment) / New Sunrise 280 (THS - Therapeutic Solutions, Milan, Italy) on the selected points (10 agopuncture points) or scrambled points for 20 minutes at baseline (T0) and after 4 (T4) and 8 (T8) weeks. Outcome measures were recorded at T0, T4 and T8 and included FIQ (fibromyalgia impact questionnaire), WIP (widespread pain index), VAS pain, SS (symptom severity scale), and SF-36 (short form 36 health survey questionnaire).

Results:

Patients receiving the active treatment had a deep reduction of WIP from T0 to T8 (-76% vs -13% in placebo) with a statistically significant difference compared to the placebo group (p=0.0025) (Figure 1). In all endpoints, we observed a general reduction at T4 and T8 compared to T0 also for FIQ, VAS pain, SS, SF-36, regardless of the treatment arm and the decrease was higher in the active treatment arm compared to the placebo group, albeit not reaching statistical significance (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

The results of our pilot study show that PEMF is more effective than placebo in reducing widespread pain in fibromyalgia while confirming that a placebo effect is clear in this complex disease.

References:

[1]Targeting network hubs with noninvasive brain stimulation in patients with fibromyalgia Chelsea M. Kaplan, R.E. Harris, UnCheol Lee, Alexander F. DaSilva, George A. Mashour, Steven E. Harte. PAIN: January 2020 - Volume 161 - Issue 1 - p 43-46

[2]Yuan J, Xin F, Jiang W. Underlying Signaling Pathways and Therapeutic Applications of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields in Bone Repair.Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;46(4):1581-1594

[3]Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia and measurement of symptom severity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken).2010;62:600-61

Disclosure of Interests:

Massimo Giovale: None declared, Lucia Novelli: None declared, Stefano Rampoldi: None declared, Rossana Galli: None declared, Patrizia Monteforte: None declared, Marica Doveri: None declared, Gerolamo Bianchi Grant/research support from: Celgene, Consultant of: Amgen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Abiogen, Alfa-Sigma, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Servier, UCB, Luigi Carlo Bottaro: None declared, Carlo Selmi Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, and Leo Pharma, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Regeneron, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aesku, Alfa-Wassermann, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Grifols, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB Pharma

[Osteoarthicular injuries in orthopedic surgeons. How do we deal with it?]

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic decision-making is a complex process in which multiple variables must be considered. There is a growing trend towards surgical indication, although scientific evidence is not always blunt. Understanding how surgeons make decisions can improve our understanding of treatment variability.

OBJECTIVES

To expose the demographic situation of osteoarticular injuries in orthopedic surgeons in Uruguay and how they deal with their own injury and identify those variables that influence therapeutic decision-making in the orthopedist.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using the Uruguayan Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology database, residents and surgeons who had at least one osteoarticular injury were identified. Each of the selected ones was interviewed by telephone, obtaining the variables of interest.

RESULTS

In a total of 274 residents and Orthopedic surgeons, we include 56 professionals and 69 osteoarticular injuries. We highlight the existence of multiple injuries of controversial treatment, according to current scientific evidence. The surgeon did not always indicate the same treatment to himself, in respect of the one that would indicate a patient with the same injury. Fear of complications, rapid job reimbursement, opinion of an expert colleague, among others were some of the variables found in the therapeutic decision.

CONCLUSIONS

When the lesion settles on the surgeon itself, a different action was observed with respect to a patient with equal injury.

P5672Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of point-of-care ultrasound among syncope patients in the emergency department

Background/Introduction

Syncope is still a challenge for risk stratification in the Emergency Department (ED), and the indication to discharge is not well established for all patients.

Purpose

To evaluate diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of integration of clinical assessment and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in evaluating non high-risk syncopes in the ED.

Methods

This observational prospective cohort study enrolled patients between February 2016 and January 2019.

All adult patients presenting in the ED for a non-high risk syncope were eligible (defined according to the 2015 ESC consensus on management of syncope in the ED). Subject for whom event etiology was identified right after the clinical assessment (i.e. history, physical exam, and EKG) or showing a clinical high risk for short term serious outcomes or refuse to participate in the study were excluded.

After the initial clinical assessment, the physician responsible for patient care was asked to categorize the syncope as low or neither high nor low risk. Immediately after, the same physician performed POCUS, and a new risk assessment, based on the results of both clinical and sonographic findings, was recorded. Thirty days after the ED evaluation, all participants were telephonically followed up by the investigators in order to assess the risk of short-term outcomes as defined in the San Francisco Syncope Rule cohorts. Both diagnostic accuracy, defined as sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SPE), and clinical utility, evaluated as net reclassification index (NRI) and net benefit were evaluated for clinical and POCUS-integrated assessment.

Results

A total of 415 patients with a syncope were eligible. Of these, 194 were enrolled (107 women - 55.2%). Median age was 63 years (interquartile range, IQR, 30 years). During the follow up, 21 patients experienced 28 events.

SE and SPE of the clinical evaluation were 33.3% (95% confidence interval, CI, 14.6–57%) and 79.5% (95% CI 72.7–85.3%), and they were 42.9% (95% CI 21.8–66%), and 92.4% (95% CI 87.4–95.9) for the POCUS-integrated evaluation (p<0.01 for SE and 0.05 for SPE).

NRI for events and non-events during follow up was 9.5% and 12.7%, respectively.

Using the prevalence of events in our cohort (10.8%) as the threshold probability, the use of the POCUS-integrated approach would reduce the diagnostic error of the clinical evaluation by 4.6 cases/100 patients.

The median time between clinical and POCUS-integrated evaluation was 15 minutes (iqr 20 minutes).

Conclusion

The results of our study suggest that the integration of the clinical evaluation with POCUS for patients presenting to the ED for non high-risk syncope might be able to increase the diagnostic accuracy and the utility of the clinical assessment alone.