Volume 122, Issue 12

The use of vena cava filters (VCF) is a common procedure utilized in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE), yet VCFs have some significant and known complications, such as strut penetration and migration. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and PE remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. It is estimated that as many as 900,000 individuals are affected by these each year with estimates suggesting that nearly 60,000–100,000 Americans die of DVT/PE each year. Currently, the preferred treatment for DVT/PE is anticoagulation. However, if there are contraindications to anticoagulation, an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter can be placed. These filters have both therapeutic and prophylactic indications. Therapeutic indications (documented thromboembolic disease) include absolute or relative contraindications to anticoagulation, complication of anticoagulation, failure of anticoagulation, propagation/progression of DVT during therapeutic anticoagulation, PE with residual DVT in patients with further risk of PE, free-floating iliofemoral IVC thrombus, and severe cardiopulmonary disease and DVT. There are also prophylactic indications (no current thromboembolic disease) for these filters. These include severe trauma without documented PE or DVT, closed head injury, spinal cord injury, multiple long bone fractures, and patients deemed at high risk of thromboembolic disease (immobilized or intensive care unit). Interruption of the IVC with filters has long been practiced and is a procedure that can be performed on an outpatient basis. There are known complications of filter placement, which include filter migration within the vena cava and into various organs, as well as filter strut fracture. This case describes a 66-year-old woman who was found to have a filter migration and techniques that were utilized to remove this filter.

Context During the COVID-19 pandemic, dermatologists within the Beaumont Farmington Hills’ Dermatology program noticed an increase in conditions associated with mask wearing, such as “maskne” (acne in a mask distribution, thought to be caused by mask wearing), as well as worsening of previously diagnosed dermatologic conditions. Objectives The goal of our study was to explore various factors that impacted mask-related skin changes and how these skin changes affected quality of life. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed. The primary 10-item survey instrument administered was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Respondents were asked a series of 10 additional questions concerning the degree to which abnormal mask-related skin conditions affect their skin symptoms, possible embarrassment/self-consciousness, and perceived impact of mask-related skin changes. A series of descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation charts, and graphical examinations of data was utilized to evaluate sample subgroup and outcome distributional patterns. Pearson r bivariate correlation coefficients between possible collinear predictive measures on the primary study outcome were calculated. A series of simple inferential chi-squared (Χ 2 ) tests of independence were also conducted. Results A total of 370 out of 430 (86.0%) Beaumont Health employees noticed some degree of skin changes since the work-hours face mask requirement was instituted, while 378 out of 430 (87.9%) felt that their skin was better when not wearing a mask. The majority of respondents, 283 (65.8%), reported having at least a little symptomatic skin (i.e., itchy, painful, sore, stinging) during the prior week. Furthermore, 72.3% reported that they were at least a little embarrassed or self-conscious of their skin. Chi-squared analysis of composite DLQI score categories by the number of types of masks utilized (Pearson X 2 =19.0, df=8, p=0.015), and some degree of symptomatic skin (Pearson X 2 =156.4, df=4, p<0.001) were found to be statistically significant. Conclusions A large number of healthcare workers are affected by mask-related skin changes. Further research should be directed at better understanding how skin changes associated with mask wearing impact one’s quality of life and mental health.

Context It remains to be determined exactly how the COVID-19 pandemic has and will continue to impact osteopathic resident education, in particular as it pertains to treatment with osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM). Although the long-term effects of the pandemic cannot be determined yet, changes in current resident education can be analyzed. Objectives Here, we describe how the format, frequency, and environment of OMM training have changed in residency programs from prior to February 2020 to the “lockdown” period of February 2020 to June 2020, and then to the “recovery” period of July 2020 to February 2021. Methods A 19-question survey inquiring about the above three categories was emailed via SurveyMonkey to 282 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) residency programs with osteopathic recognition at the end of January 2021. Results Of the 282 programs surveyed, 24.5% (69) responded. Osteopathic neuromusculoskeletal medicine (ONMM) programs were excluded from the data analysis, resulting in a modified sample size of n=60. Responses indicated that residency programs dramatically decreased the frequency of OMM didactic education sessions (100.0% [60] reported offering OMM didactic education before the lockdown period; compared to 73.3% [44] during the lockdown period) and shifted their educational programs from an in-person-only environment (88.3% [53] before lockdown; 8.3% [5] during lockdown) to either a combined in-person/virtual platform (6.7% [4] before lockdown; 31.7% [19] during lockdown) or to a virtual-only platform (0.0% [0] before lockdown; 46.7% [28] during lockdown). During the recovery period, 91.7% (55) programs reported giving some form of OMM didactic education. The percentage of programs reporting in-person-only, combined in-person/virtual platform, and virtual-only didactic education were 3.3% (2), 53.3% (32), and 41.7% (25), respectively, during the recovery period. The preferred method of instruction changed from a combination of resident and attending lectures with a hands-on component (55.0%; 33) before lockdown, to the same but without a hands-on component (28.3%; 17) during lockdown, and back to the same but with a hands-on component (36.7%; 22) during the recovery period. Furthermore, the number of programs offering OMM didactic education [OMM patient care] at least once a month decreased from 70.0% (42) [78.3% (47)] before the lockdown period to 46.7% (28) [48.3% (29)] during the lockdown period. It then increased to 55.0% (33) [73.3% (44)] during the recovery period. Finally, before the lockdown period, programs offered OMM patient care predominantly in a combination of an inpatient/outpatient environment (63.3%; 38). The preferred patient care setting changed to an outpatient-only environment (43.3%; 26) during the lockdown period and then back to a combination of an inpatient/outpatient environment (45.0%; 27) during the recovery period. Conclusions This study demonstrates that programs have been dramatically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, by the augmentation of the osteopathic learning environment, and by the delivery of OMM to patient care within the training programs. These impacts were still present 1 year after the start of the pandemic. It will be imperative for ACGME Osteopathic Recognition (ACGME-OR) programs to continue an assessment of these impacts on resident physicians’ learning and preparedness.

Context Although low back pain is a common medical condition that often progresses to become a chronic problem, little is known about the likelihood of recovery from chronic low back pain (CLBP). Objectives This study aimed to measure the risk of recovery from CLBP based on low back pain intensity and back-related functioning measures reported by participants within a pain research registry over 12 months of observation and to consider the implications for osteopathic medicine. Methods A total of 740 participants with CLBP in the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation in the United States were studied between April 2016 and October 2021. Inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery were assembled from the participants who did not meet the recovery criteria at registry enrollment. The pain recovery criterion was having a score of ≤1/10 on a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, and the functional recovery criterion was having a score of ≤4/24 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. A total of 737 and 692 participants were included in the inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery, respectively. Participants provided follow-up data at quarterly encounters over 12 months to determine if they achieved and maintained a pain or functional recovery from CLBP over the entire period of observation. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with recovery. Results The mean age of the participants at baseline was 52.9 years (SD, 13.1 years) and 551 (74.5%) were female. No participant reported a pain recovery that was maintained over all four quarterly encounters, whereas 16 participants (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.2–3.4%) maintained a functional recovery. Having high levels of pain self-efficacy (OR, 17.50; 95% CI, 2.30–133.23; p=0.006) and being Hispanic (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.11–11.37; p=0.03) were associated with functional recovery, and high levels of pain catastrophizing (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03–0.65; p=0.01) and having chronic widespread pain (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.66; p=0.007) were inversely associated with functional recovery. The findings for pain self-efficacy and Hispanic ethnicity remained significant in the multivariate analysis that adjusted for potential confounders. Conclusions The absence of pain recovery and the low likelihood of functional recovery observed in our study suggests that osteopathic physicians should embrace a biopsychosocial approach to CLBP management and work with patients to set realistic expectations based on more pragmatic outcome measures, such as those that address health-related quality of life. The findings also suggest the potential importance of patient education and counseling to enhance pain self-efficacy.

Chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) is a condition that produces exercise-induced pain and swelling due to a transient increase in compartment pressures. It is thought to be due to muscle hypertrophy and is classically associated with young athletes under 30, overtraining, anabolic steroid use, and aberrant running biomechanics. We present a unique case of CECS in a patient without the traditional risk factors but rather diagnosed with cardiac cirrhosis and portal hypertension. This patient’s exercise-induced bilateral leg pain met the CECS criteria for leg compartment pressure testing and was attributed to fluid retention secondary to his comorbidities. His symptoms significantly improved after initiating diuretic pharmacotherapy. Based on our literature review, there is a dearth of literature associating CECS with specific chronic cardiac or hepatic conditions as well as describing its incidence in these conditions.

Context Vaccination status has been shown to be linked to patient-centered outcomes in those with COVID-19. However, minimal data have explored the relationship between vaccination status and representation rates after receiving monoclonal antibodies (MABs) the Delta strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a community setting. Objectives The authors sought to determine if there was a difference in patient-centered outcomes between those who were vaccinated and unvaccinated after the administration of casirivimab/imdevimab for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the time when the Delta strain was most prevalent. Methods A convenience sample of consecutive adults given casirivimab/imdevimab at either an outpatient infusion center or within the emergency department (ED) were included in analysis. Patient demographics, authorized-use qualifiers from the emergency use authorization (EUA), baseline vital signs at the time of infusion, representation rates to a healthcare provider within the hospital’s network, and any admissions to the hospital following infusion were all collected from the patient’s electronic medical record. Vaccination status was confirmed in both the patient’s electronic medical record and the Arizona State Immunization Information System (ASIIS). Analysis was conducted utilizing descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and the chi-squared analysis for nominal data. Results In total, 743 patients were included in the study, with 585 being unvaccinated and 158 being vaccinated at the time of administration. Those in the vaccinated group were more likely to be older (60.0 vs. 55.0 years; p<0.001) and to have a history of diabetes (18.4% vs. 11.3%; p=0.02), hypertension (39.9% vs. 28.5%; p=0.006), immunosuppression (7.0% vs. 1.4%; p<0.001), and chronic kidney disease (7.0% vs. 3.4%; p=0.05). In the entire sample, 105 (14.1%) patients had an unexpected return visit to either the ED or urgent care at 28 days, with 17 (2.3%) requiring hospitalization. Patients who were vaccinated were more likely to represent for care after casirivimab/imdevimab infusion (20.3% vs. 12.5%; p=0.01), but no difference was noted in hospitalization rates between the two groups (18.8% vs. 15.1%; p=0.15). Conclusions MAB therapy with casirivimab/imdevimab for the outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was associated with a low rate of hospitalization. However, those who were vaccinated were more likely to present for unexpected return care at either the ED or urgent care within 28 days of the initial infusion.