Faculty Bibliography

Psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) experiences can range from very positive to highly challenging (e.g., fear, grief, and paranoia). These challenging experiences contribute to hesitancy toward psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy among health care providers and patients. Co-use of 3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) with psilocybin/LSD anecdotally reduces challenging experiences and enhances positive experiences associated with psilocybin/LSD. However, limited research has investigated the acute effects of co-use of MDMA and psilocybin/LSD. In a prospective convenience sample (N = 698) of individuals with plans to use psilocybin/LSD, we examined whether co-use of MDMA with psilocybin/LSD (n = 27) is associated with differences in challenging or positive experiences. Challenging experiences were measured using the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire and positive experiences were measured using the Mystical Experience Questionnaire and single-item measures of self-compassion, compassion, love, and gratitude. Potentially confounding variables were identified and included as covariates. Relative to psilocybin/LSD alone, co-use of psilocybin/LSD with a self-reported low (but not medium-high) dose of MDMA was associated with significantly less intense total challenging experiences, grief, and fear, as well as increased self-compassion, love and gratitude. Co-use of psilocybin/LSD and MDMA was not associated with differences in mystical-type experiences or compassion. Findings suggest co-use of MDMA with psilocybin/LSD may buffer against some aspects of challenging experiences and enhance certain positive experiences. Limitations include use of a convenience sample, small sample size, and non-experimental design. Additional studies (including controlled dose-response studies) that examine the effects and safety of co-administering MDMA with psilocybin/LSD (in healthy controls and clinical samples) are warranted and may assist the development of personalized treatments.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3-6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4-7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04-1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11-1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.

BACKGROUND:Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. METHODS:The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. RESULTS:NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most common form of primary pulmonary disability. Few effective treatment options exist for it, but recently, lung-volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been shown to be effective in selected patients with emphysema. Pulmonary rehabilitation is an integral part of the preparation for and recovery from the procedure and has significant benefit in helping to improve the quality of life and conditioning of patients with COPD who undergo LVRS. Overall Article Objectives: (a) To describe the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in LVRS, (b) to understand the components of a comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation program, and (c) to describe the effects of a pulmonary rehabilitation program

Screening athletes and advising them regarding exercise are parts of the practice of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Being able to recognize athletes at risk of coronary events is an important part of preparticipation screening. Good guidelines have been developed that let physicians proceed with confidence in screening and in recommending testing for athletes at risk. This review provides the recommended guidelines for physiatrists in practice. Overall Article Objectives: (a) To recognize risk of coronary disease in athletes, (b) to identify appropriate screening for people at risk, and (c) to interpret test results in people with coronary disease

Pulmonary rehabilitation includes the rehabilitation of not only patients with respiratory failure in need of ventilatory support but also patients with primary pulmonary disease. New advances in medical management now offer treatment to patients with end-stage emphysema, pulmonary hypertension, and interstitial disease, and the principles of rehabilitation can add both function and quality to the lives of these patients. New surgical approaches and better transplantation outcomes that restore pulmonary function have also been introduced. Rehabilitation professionals need to be aware of these advances and be able to incorporate this knowledge into the practice of rehabilitation medicine. Overall Article Objectives: (a) To identify major categories of pulmonary disease seen in pulmonary rehabilitation, (b) to know appropriate interventions and support for patients with respiratory failure, (c) to describe the new interventions available for end-stage lung disease, and (d) to describe the appropriate pulmonary rehabilitation for people with pulmonary disease

Cardiac rehabilitation includes not only the rehabilitation of people with ischemic heart disease but also those with congestive heart failure, heart transplantation, congenital heart disease, and other conditions. New advances in medical treatment have arisen, and there are new approaches in treatment, including alternative medicine and complementary care. New surgical approaches that help restore cardiac function have also been introduced, and rehabilitation professionals must be aware of these advances and be able to incorporate this knowledge into the practice of rehabilitation medicine. Overall Article Objectives: (a) To identify major categories of cardiac disease, (b) to elucidate appropriate interventions and support for patients with coronary artery disease, (c) to describe the new interventions available for the treatment of cardiac disease, and (d) to describe the appropriate role of cardiac rehabilitation for people with various forms of cardiac disease

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in an inpatient cardiac rehabilitation program (a phase IB) whether length of stay (LOS), discharge to home, and improvement in physical function differed between patients with lower and higher degrees of functional independence on admission. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: A public acute long-term care hospital. PATIENTS: All cardiac rehabilitation patients (N = 143) admitted to the hospital from January 1998 through June 1999. Patients were divided into a higher- and a lower-functioning group by using the admission FIM instrument scores above and below the midpoint of 72. Comparisons in LOS, discharge disposition, and functional gains between these 2 groups were then performed. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: FIM scores, FIM change, FIM gains per week, LOS, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Total FIM scores at discharge were significantly higher than those on admission (25%, P <.0001). The median value of total FIM gains per week was 7.78 with a stay of 17 days and a home discharge rate of 76%. The higher-functioning group (n = 106) differed from the lower group (n = 37) with shorter stay (15 vs 23d, P <.0001), greater FIM gains per week (8.6 vs 4.8, P =.002), and greater likelihood of discharge to home or community (84% vs 54%, P <.001). The average incremental FIM change in each group was the same. In multivariate analysis, both admission (P =.001) and discharge (P <.001) FIM scores were the best predictors of patients' discharge disposition to home. CONCLUSIONS: Admission FIM scores are important predictors for the clinical course and discharge outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation patients, with those with higher admission FIM scores having a shorter LOS and greater likelihood of discharge to home. The admission FIM scores can help to establish realistic goals