Objective: To characterize environmental barriers to leisure participation among individuals living with stroke; examine relationships between environmental barriers and leisure interest and satisfaction; and investigate participant factors associated with the perception of environmental barriers. Design: Survey. Setting: Community. Participants: Convenience sample of 51 community-dwelling adults less than six months post stroke. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measure(s): Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors-Short Form. Results: Physical and structural environmental barriers were reported as the most frequent and large barrier to leisure participation (n = 26 (51%) rated as “monthly or more,” n = 12 (24%) rated as “big problem”). While attitude and support and policy barriers were not as commonly encountered, participants labeled these as “big problem(s)” (attitude and support n = 6 (12%), policy n = 7 (14%)). The presence of depressive symptoms was associated with the frequency in which attitudinal and support (rho = 0.50, P < 0.001), physical and structural (rho = 0.46, P < 0.001), and service and assistance (rho = 0.28, P = 0.04) barriers were reported, as well as magnitude of attitude and support barriers (rho = 0.48, P < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, depressive symptoms and walking capacity explained 21% of the variance of the frequency of attitude and support barriers (P = 0.004), where depressive symptoms was an independent correlate (P = 0.004). No other factors were associated with environmental barriers to leisure participation. Conclusion: Individuals with stroke report frequent and large physical and structural environmental barriers to leisure participation, which may be associated with the presence of depressive symptoms.

Introduction: The prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) among patients with syncope is understudied. Based on a recent study with an exceptionally high PE prevalence, some advocate investigating all syncope patients for PE, including those with another clear cause for their syncope. We sought to evaluate the PE prevalence among emergency department (ED) patients with syncope. Methods: We combined data from two large prospective studies enrolling adults with syncope from 17 EDs in Canada and the United States. Each study collected the results of investigations related to PE (i.e. D-dimer or ventilation-perfusion (VQ) scan, or computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA)), and 30-day adjudicated outcomes including diagnosis of PE, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, serious hemorrhage and/or death. Results: Of the 9,091 patients (median age 66 years, 51.9% females, 39.1% hospitalized) with 30-day follow-up, 546 (6.0%) were investigated for PE: 278 (3.1%) had D-dimer, 39 (0.4%) had VQ and 347 (3.8%) patients had CTPA performed. 30-day outcomes included: 874 (9.6%) patients with any serious outcome; 0.9% deaths; and 818 (9.0%) patients with non-PE serious outcomes. Overall, 56 patients (prevalence 0.6%; 95% CI 0.5% 0.8%) were diagnosed with PE, including 8 (0.1%) of those admitted to hospital at the index presentation. Only 11 patients (0.1%) with a non-PE serious condition had a concomitant underlying PE identified. Conclusion: The prevalence of PE is very low among ED patients with syncope, including those hospitalized following syncope. While acknowledging syncope may be caused by an underlying PE, clinicians should be cautious against indiscriminate over-investigations for PE.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists. Source: Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 disease were included. Accelerated screening was used; data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data was organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care. Principal Findings: Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed amongst recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended video laryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%. Conclusion: Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent. However, we also identified significant differences. This may reflect the absence of a coordinated response towards studying and establishing best-practices in perioperative patients with COVID-19. Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/a2k4u/)