The objective of this review is to summarize the available data on the use of melatonin and melatonin agonist for the prevention and management of delirium in the elderly patients from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search of 5 major databases PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted. This search yielded a total of 2 RCTs for melatonin. One study compared melatonin to midazolam, clonidine, and control groups for the prevention and management of delirium in individuals who were pre- and posthip post-hip arthroplasty. The other study compared melatonin to placebo for the prevention of delirium in older adults admitted to an inpatient internal medicine service. Data from these 2 studies indicate that melatonin may have some benefit in the prevention and management of delirium in older adults. However, there is no evidence that melatonin reduces the severity of delirium or has any effect on behaviors or functions in these individuals. Melatonin was well tolerated in these 2 studies. The search for a melatonin agonist for delirium in the elderly patients yielded 1 study of ramelteon. In this study, ramelteon was found to be beneficial in preventing delirium in medically ill individuals when compared to placebo. Ramelteon was well tolerated in this study.
Background The use of propofol during colonoscopy has gained increased popularity due to deeper anesthesia compared to conscious sedation. Prior studies examining the use of propofol sedation during colonoscopy have primarily focused on anesthesia outcomes. Whether propofol sedation is associated with improvements in colonoscopy outcomes is uncertain. Aims The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were the detection of any adenoma (conventional adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, and traditional serrated adenoma), sessile serrated polyp detection rate, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and perforation rate. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic area in Southwest Ontario. Procedures performed in patients less than 18 years of age or by endoscopist who perform <50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed. Results A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others) of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation (e.g. combination of a benzodiazepine and a narcotic). Patients who received propofol were likely to have a screening indication (49.2% vs 45.5%, p<0.0001), not have a trainee endoscopist present and be performed at a non-academic centre (32.2% vs 44.6%, p<0.0001). Compared to conscious sedation, use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p<0.0001) and detection of any adenoma (27.7% vs. 29.8%, p<0.0001); no difference was observed in the detection ofsessile serrated polyps (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.26), polyp detection rate (41.2% vs 41.2%, p=0.978), cecal intubation rate (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p=0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%,p=0.45). On multi-variable analysis, the use of propofol was not significantly associated with any improvement in ADR (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.74–1.10, p=0.30), detection of any adenoma (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.75–1.14, p=0.47), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (RR=1.20, 95%CI 0.90–1.60, p=0.22), polyp detection rate (RR=1.00, 95% CI 0.90–1.11, p=0.99), or cecal intubation rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.80–1.26, p=0.99). Conclusions The use of propofol sedation does not improve colonoscopy quality metrics. Funding Agencies None
Background Performing a minimum number of colonoscopies annually has been proposed by some jurisdictions as a requirement for maintaining privileges. However, this practice is supported by limited evidence. Aims The objective of this study was to determine if annual colonoscopy volume was associated with colonoscopy quality metrics. Methods A population-based study was performed using the Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort, which consists of all adult patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 academic and community hospitals within the health region. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form completed after each procedure and pathology reports were manually reviewed. Physician annualized colonoscopy volumes were compared by correlation analysis to each quality-related outcome, by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), and logistic regression. The prognostic value of colonoscopy volume was also adjusted for case-mix and potential confounders in separate regression analyses for each outcome. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and cecal intubation. Results A total of 47,195 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others). There were no clear relationships between annual colonoscopy volumes and study outcomes. Colonoscopy volume was not associated with ADR (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96–1.10, p=0.48) and corresponded to an AUROC not significantly different from the null (AUROC 0.52, 95% CI 0.43–0.61, p=0.65). Multi-variable regression adjusting for case-mix also demonstrated no predictive value of annual colonoscopy volume for the primary outcome (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94–1.12, p=0.55). Similarly, analyses of secondary outcomes failed to find an association between colonoscopy volume and PDR, SSPDR, or cecal intubation (Table 1). Conclusions Annual colonoscopy volumes do not predict ADR, PDR, SSPDR, or cecal intubation rate. Results of unconditional and conditional approaches for examining the predictive value of annual colonoscopy volume for quality related outcomes. Funding Agencies None
The Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) is an interviewer-administered instrument designed to measure health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It has four dimensions (subscales): Dyspnea, Fatigue, Emotional Function, and Mastery (the patient's feeling of control over the disease). Two self-administered versions of the instrument have been developed, but factorial validity has recieved little attention in an independent sample of individuals participating in pulmonary rehabilitation.To determine if factorial validity -specifically if the subscales -as originally proposed, were also identified in our Aims and objective: population of COPD patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation.Data from 282 patients with diagnoses of COPD (52% female, age 69 ± 10 years, FEV1 53 ± 23%) who completed the Method: self-reported Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ-SR) as part of pre-and post-rehabilitation assessments were analyzed. A principal component factor analysis using an Eigen value of 1 as the extraction criterion and Varimax rotation was performed.All subscales were reliable in the pre-and-post samples with an α > 0.80. A four factor solution was found that explained 67% of Results: the variance. The Emotional Function dimension explained 40% of the variance. The Dyspnea and Fatigue dimensions were fully supported in both pre-and post-rehabilitation testing. The Emotional Function dimension was mostly supported, with the exception of the item concerning "feeling embarrassed by coughing or heavy breathing", which loaded with the Mastery dimension. The Mastery dimension lost the item, "How much of the time did you feel very confident you can deal with illness?" to the Emotional Function dimension. The Mastery dimension, which had inconsistent loadings, gained one new item and lost one previously proposed item. The Emotional Function dimension explained the largest proportion of response to the questions.The CRQ-SR overall structure is supported with the exception of the Mastery dimension (subscale), which had inconsistent
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.