PARIS – The most appropriate stroke prevention strategy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement is routine use of a cerebroembolic protection device for all, because no identifiable high-risk anatomic subsets exist, Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, said at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A wealth of evidence shows that the average stroke rate associated with contemporary TAVR is 4.4%, although this figure is probably on the low side because most of the data come from nonrandomized registries, which typically underreport neurologic outcomes. The stroke rate is independent of operator experience and volume, surgical risk score, and institutional TAVR volume. Moreover, in the SENTINEL trial, embolic debris was captured in 99% of patients fitted with the cerebroembolic protection device.

“A huge variety of material was captured, including thrombus, valve tissue, calcified material, and – alarmingly – foreign material in 35% of cases,” Dr. Jilaihawi noted.

Nonetheless, the issue of routine versus selective use of cardioembolic protection remains controversial at a time when interventionalists are trying to make TAVR a simpler, briefer procedure, even though the approved Sentinel device is successfully deployed in a median of only 4 minutes. This was the impetus for Dr. Jilaihawi to examine baseline anatomy as a potential predictor of stroke.

He looked at four key anatomic features: aortic arch type, aortic root angulation, aortic arch calcium, and aortic valve calcification. The bottom line: The benefit of cerebroembolic protection with the Sentinel device was consistent across all anatomic subgroups. For example, in patients with an aortic root angulation angle of less than 50 degrees, the incidence of stroke within 3 days post TAVR was 3.2% with and 5.9% without cerebroembolic protection, while in those with an angle of 50 degrees or more the stroke rate was 2.6% with and 9.1% without the Sentinel device. With a total of only 16 strokes by day 3 in the study, those stroke rates in the absence of cerebroembolic protection aren’t significantly different.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jilaihawi H. EuroPCR 2018.

PARIS – The most appropriate stroke prevention strategy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement is routine use of a cerebroembolic protection device for all, because no identifiable high-risk anatomic subsets exist, Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, said at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A wealth of evidence shows that the average stroke rate associated with contemporary TAVR is 4.4%, although this figure is probably on the low side because most of the data come from nonrandomized registries, which typically underreport neurologic outcomes. The stroke rate is independent of operator experience and volume, surgical risk score, and institutional TAVR volume. Moreover, in the SENTINEL trial, embolic debris was captured in 99% of patients fitted with the cerebroembolic protection device.

“A huge variety of material was captured, including thrombus, valve tissue, calcified material, and – alarmingly – foreign material in 35% of cases,” Dr. Jilaihawi noted.

Nonetheless, the issue of routine versus selective use of cardioembolic protection remains controversial at a time when interventionalists are trying to make TAVR a simpler, briefer procedure, even though the approved Sentinel device is successfully deployed in a median of only 4 minutes. This was the impetus for Dr. Jilaihawi to examine baseline anatomy as a potential predictor of stroke.

He looked at four key anatomic features: aortic arch type, aortic root angulation, aortic arch calcium, and aortic valve calcification. The bottom line: The benefit of cerebroembolic protection with the Sentinel device was consistent across all anatomic subgroups. For example, in patients with an aortic root angulation angle of less than 50 degrees, the incidence of stroke within 3 days post TAVR was 3.2% with and 5.9% without cerebroembolic protection, while in those with an angle of 50 degrees or more the stroke rate was 2.6% with and 9.1% without the Sentinel device. With a total of only 16 strokes by day 3 in the study, those stroke rates in the absence of cerebroembolic protection aren’t significantly different.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jilaihawi H. EuroPCR 2018.

PARIS – The most appropriate stroke prevention strategy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement is routine use of a cerebroembolic protection device for all, because no identifiable high-risk anatomic subsets exist, Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, said at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A wealth of evidence shows that the average stroke rate associated with contemporary TAVR is 4.4%, although this figure is probably on the low side because most of the data come from nonrandomized registries, which typically underreport neurologic outcomes. The stroke rate is independent of operator experience and volume, surgical risk score, and institutional TAVR volume. Moreover, in the SENTINEL trial, embolic debris was captured in 99% of patients fitted with the cerebroembolic protection device.

“A huge variety of material was captured, including thrombus, valve tissue, calcified material, and – alarmingly – foreign material in 35% of cases,” Dr. Jilaihawi noted.

Nonetheless, the issue of routine versus selective use of cardioembolic protection remains controversial at a time when interventionalists are trying to make TAVR a simpler, briefer procedure, even though the approved Sentinel device is successfully deployed in a median of only 4 minutes. This was the impetus for Dr. Jilaihawi to examine baseline anatomy as a potential predictor of stroke.

He looked at four key anatomic features: aortic arch type, aortic root angulation, aortic arch calcium, and aortic valve calcification. The bottom line: The benefit of cerebroembolic protection with the Sentinel device was consistent across all anatomic subgroups. For example, in patients with an aortic root angulation angle of less than 50 degrees, the incidence of stroke within 3 days post TAVR was 3.2% with and 5.9% without cerebroembolic protection, while in those with an angle of 50 degrees or more the stroke rate was 2.6% with and 9.1% without the Sentinel device. With a total of only 16 strokes by day 3 in the study, those stroke rates in the absence of cerebroembolic protection aren’t significantly different.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jilaihawi H. EuroPCR 2018.

The number of Medicaid enrollees receiving medication treatment with methadone and buprenorphine rose from 2002 to 2009 because of the availability of buprenorphine. A cause for concern, however, is that medication treatment increased at a much higher rate in counties with lower poverty rates – and lower concentrations of black and Hispanic residents.

“Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that [medication treatment] benefits are equitably distributed across society and reach disadvantaged individuals who may be at higher risk of experiencing opioid use disorders,” wrote Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, and his colleagues. The report was published in Substance Abuse.

Dr. Stein, of Rand Corporation, and his colleagues set out to assess the changes in medication treatment use over time and how medication treatment was being used at the county level – in addition to the associations between poverty, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. The research team analyzed Medicaid claims from 2002 to 2009 from 14 states, representing 53% of the U.S. population and 47% of 2009 Medicaid enrollees. The states selected in the analysis, chosen to represent regional and population diversity, were California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The researchers looked at medication treatment use among 18- to 64-year-old Medicaid enrollees, excluding people who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

The variables for who received medication treatment and data on county characteristics were well defined. Individuals who had received either methadone or buprenorphine were identified as receiving medication treatment. Some patients (3% or less) used both methadone or buprenorphine but were categorized as methadone users in the analysis to better elucidate the role of buprenorphine in medication treatment. Counties were classified as low poverty if the percentage of the county population was below the median (less than 13.5%) of the counties in the 14 states in the analysis and the federal poverty line.

The racial/ethnic makeup of a county was determined to be low percentage of black people if the percentage of the black population was below the median (less than 5.6%) in all counties. Similarly, a county was considered low percentage of Hispanic residents if the proportion of the Hispanic population was below the median of less than 4.2%, reported Dr. Stein, who also is affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh.

The analysis showed that from 2002 to 2009, the proportion of Medicaid users receiving methadone increased by 20% (42,235 to 50,587), accounting for a fraction of the 62% increase in Medicaid enrollment (42,263 to 68,278). The real driver in increased medication treatment rates was the adoption of buprenorphine, which soared from 75 in 2002 to 19,691 in 2009. In 2009, 29% of Medicaid enrollees received medication treatment with buprenorphine. The growth of medication treatment varied by the characteristics of a county’s population. In 2002, urban counties had substantially higher rates of primarily methadone therapy than did rural counties (P less than.001). But no significant differences were found across the county based the concentration of black residents or poverty. Communities that did not have low concentrations of Hispanic residents experienced higher rates of medication treatment, regardless of poverty (P less than .01 for low poverty and not low poverty)

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stein BD et al. Subst Abuse. 2018 Jun 22. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2018.1449166.

The number of Medicaid enrollees receiving medication treatment with methadone and buprenorphine rose from 2002 to 2009 because of the availability of buprenorphine. A cause for concern, however, is that medication treatment increased at a much higher rate in counties with lower poverty rates – and lower concentrations of black and Hispanic residents.

“Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that [medication treatment] benefits are equitably distributed across society and reach disadvantaged individuals who may be at higher risk of experiencing opioid use disorders,” wrote Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, and his colleagues. The report was published in Substance Abuse.

Dr. Stein, of Rand Corporation, and his colleagues set out to assess the changes in medication treatment use over time and how medication treatment was being used at the county level – in addition to the associations between poverty, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. The research team analyzed Medicaid claims from 2002 to 2009 from 14 states, representing 53% of the U.S. population and 47% of 2009 Medicaid enrollees. The states selected in the analysis, chosen to represent regional and population diversity, were California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The researchers looked at medication treatment use among 18- to 64-year-old Medicaid enrollees, excluding people who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

The variables for who received medication treatment and data on county characteristics were well defined. Individuals who had received either methadone or buprenorphine were identified as receiving medication treatment. Some patients (3% or less) used both methadone or buprenorphine but were categorized as methadone users in the analysis to better elucidate the role of buprenorphine in medication treatment. Counties were classified as low poverty if the percentage of the county population was below the median (less than 13.5%) of the counties in the 14 states in the analysis and the federal poverty line.

The racial/ethnic makeup of a county was determined to be low percentage of black people if the percentage of the black population was below the median (less than 5.6%) in all counties. Similarly, a county was considered low percentage of Hispanic residents if the proportion of the Hispanic population was below the median of less than 4.2%, reported Dr. Stein, who also is affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh.

The analysis showed that from 2002 to 2009, the proportion of Medicaid users receiving methadone increased by 20% (42,235 to 50,587), accounting for a fraction of the 62% increase in Medicaid enrollment (42,263 to 68,278). The real driver in increased medication treatment rates was the adoption of buprenorphine, which soared from 75 in 2002 to 19,691 in 2009. In 2009, 29% of Medicaid enrollees received medication treatment with buprenorphine. The growth of medication treatment varied by the characteristics of a county’s population. In 2002, urban counties had substantially higher rates of primarily methadone therapy than did rural counties (P less than.001). But no significant differences were found across the county based the concentration of black residents or poverty. Communities that did not have low concentrations of Hispanic residents experienced higher rates of medication treatment, regardless of poverty (P less than .01 for low poverty and not low poverty)

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stein BD et al. Subst Abuse. 2018 Jun 22. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2018.1449166.

The number of Medicaid enrollees receiving medication treatment with methadone and buprenorphine rose from 2002 to 2009 because of the availability of buprenorphine. A cause for concern, however, is that medication treatment increased at a much higher rate in counties with lower poverty rates – and lower concentrations of black and Hispanic residents.

“Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that [medication treatment] benefits are equitably distributed across society and reach disadvantaged individuals who may be at higher risk of experiencing opioid use disorders,” wrote Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, and his colleagues. The report was published in Substance Abuse.

Dr. Stein, of Rand Corporation, and his colleagues set out to assess the changes in medication treatment use over time and how medication treatment was being used at the county level – in addition to the associations between poverty, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. The research team analyzed Medicaid claims from 2002 to 2009 from 14 states, representing 53% of the U.S. population and 47% of 2009 Medicaid enrollees. The states selected in the analysis, chosen to represent regional and population diversity, were California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The researchers looked at medication treatment use among 18- to 64-year-old Medicaid enrollees, excluding people who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

The variables for who received medication treatment and data on county characteristics were well defined. Individuals who had received either methadone or buprenorphine were identified as receiving medication treatment. Some patients (3% or less) used both methadone or buprenorphine but were categorized as methadone users in the analysis to better elucidate the role of buprenorphine in medication treatment. Counties were classified as low poverty if the percentage of the county population was below the median (less than 13.5%) of the counties in the 14 states in the analysis and the federal poverty line.

The racial/ethnic makeup of a county was determined to be low percentage of black people if the percentage of the black population was below the median (less than 5.6%) in all counties. Similarly, a county was considered low percentage of Hispanic residents if the proportion of the Hispanic population was below the median of less than 4.2%, reported Dr. Stein, who also is affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh.

The analysis showed that from 2002 to 2009, the proportion of Medicaid users receiving methadone increased by 20% (42,235 to 50,587), accounting for a fraction of the 62% increase in Medicaid enrollment (42,263 to 68,278). The real driver in increased medication treatment rates was the adoption of buprenorphine, which soared from 75 in 2002 to 19,691 in 2009. In 2009, 29% of Medicaid enrollees received medication treatment with buprenorphine. The growth of medication treatment varied by the characteristics of a county’s population. In 2002, urban counties had substantially higher rates of primarily methadone therapy than did rural counties (P less than.001). But no significant differences were found across the county based the concentration of black residents or poverty. Communities that did not have low concentrations of Hispanic residents experienced higher rates of medication treatment, regardless of poverty (P less than .01 for low poverty and not low poverty)

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stein BD et al. Subst Abuse. 2018 Jun 22. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2018.1449166.

The combination a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and an inhaled glucocorticoid decreases the risk of an asthma exacerbation by 17%, without increasing the risk of asthma-related intubation or death.

MattZ90/thinkstockphotos

An independent analysis of four large, drug company–sponsored trials supports the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to remove the black box warning on LABA/inhaled glucocorticoid products, wrote William W. Busse, MD, and his colleagues. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our analysis confirmed a lower relative risk of asthma exacerbations of 17% with combination therapy than with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone. This finding corresponds to the lower relative rates of asthma exacerbations that were reported in the sponsored individual trials: by 21% in the GlaxoSmithKline trial [hazard ratio 0.79], by 16% in the AstraZeneca trial [HR. 0.84], and by 11% in the Merck trial [HR 0.89],” wrote Dr. Busse of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and his coauthors.

The FDA based its December 2017 reversal on an initial review of the studies, which were reviewed by an independent committee and are now public. Dr. Busse led the expert analysis of the studies, which the FDA required after it put the black box warning on the combination products.

In 2010, the FDA advised that LABAs shouldn’t be used as first-line therapy for asthma and required a black box warning on all LABA-containing products. Despite an FDA-conducted meta-analysis that found no increase in serious asthma-related incidents, the agency said there wasn’t enough subgroup evidence to support the safety of LABAs when combined with an inhaled glucocorticoid.

“FDA stated that the small numbers of patients who were enrolled in these studies prevented a definitive conclusion regarding mitigation of serious asthma-related events with the addition of inhaled glucocorticoids,” the investigators stated.

The agency required the four companies marketing a LABA for asthma to conduct prospective randomized trials comparing the safety of LABA/inhaled glucocorticoid to inhaled glucocorticoid alone. The trials by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Novartis were identical. Three had complete, 26-week data; Novartis submitted partial data, as it withdrew its product from the American market in 2015. The committee reviewed all of the studies, which comprised a total of 36,010 teens and adults (aged 12-91 years). The primary endpoint was a composite of asthma-related intubation or death; secondary endpoints were a composite of hospitalization, intubation, or death, and individual assessments of each of those events.

Among the four studies, there were three asthma-related intubations: two in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and one in the combination-therapy group. There were also two asthma-related deaths, both in the combination group.

Serious asthma-related events occurred in 108 of the inhaled glucocorticoid group (0.60%) and in 119 of the combination-therapy group (0.66%), a nonsignificant difference.

However, the combination therapy did confer a significant 17% reduction in asthma exacerbations. Exacerbations occurred in 11.7% of the inhaled glucocorticoid group and in 9.8% of the combination therapy group (relative risk 0.83; P less than 0.001). All four trials showed a similarly decreased risk of exacerbation.

The committee looked at several subgroups, dividing the cohort by age, race/ethnicity/ obesity, and smoking history. The advantage associated with combination therapy remained significant in all these analyses.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Busse WW et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;78:2497-505.

The combination a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and an inhaled glucocorticoid decreases the risk of an asthma exacerbation by 17%, without increasing the risk of asthma-related intubation or death.

MattZ90/thinkstockphotos

An independent analysis of four large, drug company–sponsored trials supports the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to remove the black box warning on LABA/inhaled glucocorticoid products, wrote William W. Busse, MD, and his colleagues. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our analysis confirmed a lower relative risk of asthma exacerbations of 17% with combination therapy than with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone. This finding corresponds to the lower relative rates of asthma exacerbations that were reported in the sponsored individual trials: by 21% in the GlaxoSmithKline trial [hazard ratio 0.79], by 16% in the AstraZeneca trial [HR. 0.84], and by 11% in the Merck trial [HR 0.89],” wrote Dr. Busse of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and his coauthors.

The FDA based its December 2017 reversal on an initial review of the studies, which were reviewed by an independent committee and are now public. Dr. Busse led the expert analysis of the studies, which the FDA required after it put the black box warning on the combination products.

In 2010, the FDA advised that LABAs shouldn’t be used as first-line therapy for asthma and required a black box warning on all LABA-containing products. Despite an FDA-conducted meta-analysis that found no increase in serious asthma-related incidents, the agency said there wasn’t enough subgroup evidence to support the safety of LABAs when combined with an inhaled glucocorticoid.

“FDA stated that the small numbers of patients who were enrolled in these studies prevented a definitive conclusion regarding mitigation of serious asthma-related events with the addition of inhaled glucocorticoids,” the investigators stated.

The agency required the four companies marketing a LABA for asthma to conduct prospective randomized trials comparing the safety of LABA/inhaled glucocorticoid to inhaled glucocorticoid alone. The trials by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Novartis were identical. Three had complete, 26-week data; Novartis submitted partial data, as it withdrew its product from the American market in 2015. The committee reviewed all of the studies, which comprised a total of 36,010 teens and adults (aged 12-91 years). The primary endpoint was a composite of asthma-related intubation or death; secondary endpoints were a composite of hospitalization, intubation, or death, and individual assessments of each of those events.

Among the four studies, there were three asthma-related intubations: two in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and one in the combination-therapy group. There were also two asthma-related deaths, both in the combination group.

Serious asthma-related events occurred in 108 of the inhaled glucocorticoid group (0.60%) and in 119 of the combination-therapy group (0.66%), a nonsignificant difference.

However, the combination therapy did confer a significant 17% reduction in asthma exacerbations. Exacerbations occurred in 11.7% of the inhaled glucocorticoid group and in 9.8% of the combination therapy group (relative risk 0.83; P less than 0.001). All four trials showed a similarly decreased risk of exacerbation.

The committee looked at several subgroups, dividing the cohort by age, race/ethnicity/ obesity, and smoking history. The advantage associated with combination therapy remained significant in all these analyses.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Busse WW et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;78:2497-505.

The combination a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and an inhaled glucocorticoid decreases the risk of an asthma exacerbation by 17%, without increasing the risk of asthma-related intubation or death.

MattZ90/thinkstockphotos

An independent analysis of four large, drug company–sponsored trials supports the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to remove the black box warning on LABA/inhaled glucocorticoid products, wrote William W. Busse, MD, and his colleagues. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our analysis confirmed a lower relative risk of asthma exacerbations of 17% with combination therapy than with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone. This finding corresponds to the lower relative rates of asthma exacerbations that were reported in the sponsored individual trials: by 21% in the GlaxoSmithKline trial [hazard ratio 0.79], by 16% in the AstraZeneca trial [HR. 0.84], and by 11% in the Merck trial [HR 0.89],” wrote Dr. Busse of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and his coauthors.

The FDA based its December 2017 reversal on an initial review of the studies, which were reviewed by an independent committee and are now public. Dr. Busse led the expert analysis of the studies, which the FDA required after it put the black box warning on the combination products.

In 2010, the FDA advised that LABAs shouldn’t be used as first-line therapy for asthma and required a black box warning on all LABA-containing products. Despite an FDA-conducted meta-analysis that found no increase in serious asthma-related incidents, the agency said there wasn’t enough subgroup evidence to support the safety of LABAs when combined with an inhaled glucocorticoid.

“FDA stated that the small numbers of patients who were enrolled in these studies prevented a definitive conclusion regarding mitigation of serious asthma-related events with the addition of inhaled glucocorticoids,” the investigators stated.

The agency required the four companies marketing a LABA for asthma to conduct prospective randomized trials comparing the safety of LABA/inhaled glucocorticoid to inhaled glucocorticoid alone. The trials by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Novartis were identical. Three had complete, 26-week data; Novartis submitted partial data, as it withdrew its product from the American market in 2015. The committee reviewed all of the studies, which comprised a total of 36,010 teens and adults (aged 12-91 years). The primary endpoint was a composite of asthma-related intubation or death; secondary endpoints were a composite of hospitalization, intubation, or death, and individual assessments of each of those events.

Among the four studies, there were three asthma-related intubations: two in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and one in the combination-therapy group. There were also two asthma-related deaths, both in the combination group.

Serious asthma-related events occurred in 108 of the inhaled glucocorticoid group (0.60%) and in 119 of the combination-therapy group (0.66%), a nonsignificant difference.

However, the combination therapy did confer a significant 17% reduction in asthma exacerbations. Exacerbations occurred in 11.7% of the inhaled glucocorticoid group and in 9.8% of the combination therapy group (relative risk 0.83; P less than 0.001). All four trials showed a similarly decreased risk of exacerbation.

The committee looked at several subgroups, dividing the cohort by age, race/ethnicity/ obesity, and smoking history. The advantage associated with combination therapy remained significant in all these analyses.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Busse WW et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;78:2497-505.

After years of decline, the overall death rate has risen 12% over the last 3 years among children and adolescents aged 10-19 years, driven by an increase in deaths caused by injury, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Mortality in this age group, which had dropped nearly 33% from 1999 to 2013, climbed from 29.6 per 100,000 population aged 10-19 years in 2013 to 33.1 per 100,000 in 2016, the last year for which data are available. Meanwhile, deaths from injuries – unintentional injuries, suicides, homicides, and legal intervention – went from 19.8 per 100,000 to 23.3, an increase of almost 18%, from 2013 to 2016, and the noninjury death rate “was relatively stable,” Sally C. Curtin and her associates at the NCHS Division of Vital Statistics said in a National Vital Statistics Report.

The recent surge in injury deaths was more substantial in the older half of the age group. The mortality rate for children aged 10-14 years went from a low of 6.4 per 100,000 in 2012 to 7.1 in 2016, an increase of 11%, while the rate for those aged 15-19 rose 19% as it jumped from 32.8 per 100,000 in 2013 to 39.0 in 2016, the investigators wrote in the report.

The rate of unintentional injury deaths in 10- to 19-year-olds shows the same pattern as all deaths and injury deaths: Decline from 1999 to 2013 and then a rise for the last 3 years. That recent rise also can be seen in the most common form of unintentional injury deaths, motor vehicle traffic accidents, and in poisoning deaths, although that uptick began a year later. Homicide deaths declined by one-third from 2007 to 2014 and then increased, while suicide rates have been rising since 2007, the investigators said. Legal intervention deaths, defined as those caused by law enforcement actions, were not included because of relatively small annual numbers.

“Although progress was made in reducing injury deaths among children and adolescents aged 10-19 years during 1999-2013, the recent upturn shows that persistent as well as emerging challenges remain. … Further reductions will require renewed focus and effort,” Ms. Curtin and her associates wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Curtin SC et al. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Jun;67(4):1-16.


 

After years of decline, the overall death rate has risen 12% over the last 3 years among children and adolescents aged 10-19 years, driven by an increase in deaths caused by injury, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Mortality in this age group, which had dropped nearly 33% from 1999 to 2013, climbed from 29.6 per 100,000 population aged 10-19 years in 2013 to 33.1 per 100,000 in 2016, the last year for which data are available. Meanwhile, deaths from injuries – unintentional injuries, suicides, homicides, and legal intervention – went from 19.8 per 100,000 to 23.3, an increase of almost 18%, from 2013 to 2016, and the noninjury death rate “was relatively stable,” Sally C. Curtin and her associates at the NCHS Division of Vital Statistics said in a National Vital Statistics Report.

The recent surge in injury deaths was more substantial in the older half of the age group. The mortality rate for children aged 10-14 years went from a low of 6.4 per 100,000 in 2012 to 7.1 in 2016, an increase of 11%, while the rate for those aged 15-19 rose 19% as it jumped from 32.8 per 100,000 in 2013 to 39.0 in 2016, the investigators wrote in the report.

The rate of unintentional injury deaths in 10- to 19-year-olds shows the same pattern as all deaths and injury deaths: Decline from 1999 to 2013 and then a rise for the last 3 years. That recent rise also can be seen in the most common form of unintentional injury deaths, motor vehicle traffic accidents, and in poisoning deaths, although that uptick began a year later. Homicide deaths declined by one-third from 2007 to 2014 and then increased, while suicide rates have been rising since 2007, the investigators said. Legal intervention deaths, defined as those caused by law enforcement actions, were not included because of relatively small annual numbers.

“Although progress was made in reducing injury deaths among children and adolescents aged 10-19 years during 1999-2013, the recent upturn shows that persistent as well as emerging challenges remain. … Further reductions will require renewed focus and effort,” Ms. Curtin and her associates wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Curtin SC et al. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Jun;67(4):1-16.


 

After years of decline, the overall death rate has risen 12% over the last 3 years among children and adolescents aged 10-19 years, driven by an increase in deaths caused by injury, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Mortality in this age group, which had dropped nearly 33% from 1999 to 2013, climbed from 29.6 per 100,000 population aged 10-19 years in 2013 to 33.1 per 100,000 in 2016, the last year for which data are available. Meanwhile, deaths from injuries – unintentional injuries, suicides, homicides, and legal intervention – went from 19.8 per 100,000 to 23.3, an increase of almost 18%, from 2013 to 2016, and the noninjury death rate “was relatively stable,” Sally C. Curtin and her associates at the NCHS Division of Vital Statistics said in a National Vital Statistics Report.

The recent surge in injury deaths was more substantial in the older half of the age group. The mortality rate for children aged 10-14 years went from a low of 6.4 per 100,000 in 2012 to 7.1 in 2016, an increase of 11%, while the rate for those aged 15-19 rose 19% as it jumped from 32.8 per 100,000 in 2013 to 39.0 in 2016, the investigators wrote in the report.

The rate of unintentional injury deaths in 10- to 19-year-olds shows the same pattern as all deaths and injury deaths: Decline from 1999 to 2013 and then a rise for the last 3 years. That recent rise also can be seen in the most common form of unintentional injury deaths, motor vehicle traffic accidents, and in poisoning deaths, although that uptick began a year later. Homicide deaths declined by one-third from 2007 to 2014 and then increased, while suicide rates have been rising since 2007, the investigators said. Legal intervention deaths, defined as those caused by law enforcement actions, were not included because of relatively small annual numbers.

“Although progress was made in reducing injury deaths among children and adolescents aged 10-19 years during 1999-2013, the recent upturn shows that persistent as well as emerging challenges remain. … Further reductions will require renewed focus and effort,” Ms. Curtin and her associates wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Curtin SC et al. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Jun;67(4):1-16.


 

Q2. Correct Answer: A

Rationale
Anti-TNF therapy is relatively safe and well-tolerated. However, there are a few important issues to consider prior to initiation of therapy. There is a risk of reactivation of both Mycobacterium tuberculosis and hepatitis B. In this patient’s case, her PPD positivity is likely a false positive from remote BCG vaccination. An interferon gamma release assay (e.g. QuantiFERON®) can be checked to confirm this; even if that is positive, in the absence of active tuberculosis (TB), she can be treated for latent TB for several weeks prior to initiation of anti-TNF therapy. Her hepatitis B serologies do not suggest chronic infection but rather prior infection with resolution. In this case, anti-TNF therapy is not precluded; rather, the AGA recommends considering concurrent antiviral prophylaxis while on anti-TNF therapy. Anti-TNF agents are not known to significantly increase the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy like the nonselective anti-integrin natalizumab, so JC virus antibody positivity does not preclude their use. There is a slight increased risk of melanoma in those on anti-TNF therapy; non-melanoma skin cancers are of greater concern in those on thiopurine therapy. Finally, anti-TNF therapy should be avoided in those with demyelinating diseases or those at high risk for such diseases.

References
1. Reddy K.R., Beavers K.L., Hammond S.P., et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the prevention and treatment of Hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2014;148[1]:215-9.
2. Long M.D., Martin C.F., Pipkin C.A., et al. Risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2012;143[2]:390-9.
3. Ariyaratnam J., Subramanian V. Association between thiopurine use and nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:163-9.

Q2. Correct Answer: A

Rationale
Anti-TNF therapy is relatively safe and well-tolerated. However, there are a few important issues to consider prior to initiation of therapy. There is a risk of reactivation of both Mycobacterium tuberculosis and hepatitis B. In this patient’s case, her PPD positivity is likely a false positive from remote BCG vaccination. An interferon gamma release assay (e.g. QuantiFERON®) can be checked to confirm this; even if that is positive, in the absence of active tuberculosis (TB), she can be treated for latent TB for several weeks prior to initiation of anti-TNF therapy. Her hepatitis B serologies do not suggest chronic infection but rather prior infection with resolution. In this case, anti-TNF therapy is not precluded; rather, the AGA recommends considering concurrent antiviral prophylaxis while on anti-TNF therapy. Anti-TNF agents are not known to significantly increase the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy like the nonselective anti-integrin natalizumab, so JC virus antibody positivity does not preclude their use. There is a slight increased risk of melanoma in those on anti-TNF therapy; non-melanoma skin cancers are of greater concern in those on thiopurine therapy. Finally, anti-TNF therapy should be avoided in those with demyelinating diseases or those at high risk for such diseases.

References
1. Reddy K.R., Beavers K.L., Hammond S.P., et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the prevention and treatment of Hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2014;148[1]:215-9.
2. Long M.D., Martin C.F., Pipkin C.A., et al. Risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2012;143[2]:390-9.
3. Ariyaratnam J., Subramanian V. Association between thiopurine use and nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:163-9.

Q2. Correct Answer: A

Rationale
Anti-TNF therapy is relatively safe and well-tolerated. However, there are a few important issues to consider prior to initiation of therapy. There is a risk of reactivation of both Mycobacterium tuberculosis and hepatitis B. In this patient’s case, her PPD positivity is likely a false positive from remote BCG vaccination. An interferon gamma release assay (e.g. QuantiFERON®) can be checked to confirm this; even if that is positive, in the absence of active tuberculosis (TB), she can be treated for latent TB for several weeks prior to initiation of anti-TNF therapy. Her hepatitis B serologies do not suggest chronic infection but rather prior infection with resolution. In this case, anti-TNF therapy is not precluded; rather, the AGA recommends considering concurrent antiviral prophylaxis while on anti-TNF therapy. Anti-TNF agents are not known to significantly increase the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy like the nonselective anti-integrin natalizumab, so JC virus antibody positivity does not preclude their use. There is a slight increased risk of melanoma in those on anti-TNF therapy; non-melanoma skin cancers are of greater concern in those on thiopurine therapy. Finally, anti-TNF therapy should be avoided in those with demyelinating diseases or those at high risk for such diseases.

References
1. Reddy K.R., Beavers K.L., Hammond S.P., et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the prevention and treatment of Hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2014;148[1]:215-9.
2. Long M.D., Martin C.F., Pipkin C.A., et al. Risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2012;143[2]:390-9.
3. Ariyaratnam J., Subramanian V. Association between thiopurine use and nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:163-9.

Q1. Correct Answer: A

Rationale
This patient has an idiopathic, non-NSAID, non-H. pylori-associated ulcer and should be on daily PPI indefinitely. These patients have a high rate of recurrent bleeding (42%) and mortality when followed prospectively without being on antisecretory therapy. Although no randomized trials have assessed the benefit of medical cotherapy in this population, antiulcer therapy seems to reduce recurrent idiopathic ulcers.

References
1. Wong G.L.H., Wong V.W.S. Chan Y., et al. High incidence of mortality and recurrent bleeding in patients with Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:525-31.
2. Laine L. Jensen D.M. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107[3]:345-60.

Q1. Correct Answer: A

Rationale
This patient has an idiopathic, non-NSAID, non-H. pylori-associated ulcer and should be on daily PPI indefinitely. These patients have a high rate of recurrent bleeding (42%) and mortality when followed prospectively without being on antisecretory therapy. Although no randomized trials have assessed the benefit of medical cotherapy in this population, antiulcer therapy seems to reduce recurrent idiopathic ulcers.

References
1. Wong G.L.H., Wong V.W.S. Chan Y., et al. High incidence of mortality and recurrent bleeding in patients with Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:525-31.
2. Laine L. Jensen D.M. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107[3]:345-60.

Q1. Correct Answer: A

Rationale
This patient has an idiopathic, non-NSAID, non-H. pylori-associated ulcer and should be on daily PPI indefinitely. These patients have a high rate of recurrent bleeding (42%) and mortality when followed prospectively without being on antisecretory therapy. Although no randomized trials have assessed the benefit of medical cotherapy in this population, antiulcer therapy seems to reduce recurrent idiopathic ulcers.

References
1. Wong G.L.H., Wong V.W.S. Chan Y., et al. High incidence of mortality and recurrent bleeding in patients with Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:525-31.
2. Laine L. Jensen D.M. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107[3]:345-60.

Travel, once reserved for wealthy vacationers and high-level executives, has become a regular experience for many people. The US Travel and Tourism Overview reported that US domestic travel climbed to more than 2.25 billion person-trips in 2017.¹ The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Travel Association suggest that, based on this frequency and the known rate of diabetes, 17 million people with diabetes travel annually for leisure and 5.6 million for business, and these numbers are expected to increase.²

It stands to reason that as the number of people who travel continues to increase, so too will the number of patients with diabetes seeking medical travel advice. Despite resources available to travelers with diabetes, researchers at the 2016 meeting of the American Diabetes Association noted that only 30% of patients with diabetes who responded to a survey reported being satisfied with the resources available to help them manage their diabetes while traveling.² This article discusses how clinicians can help patients manage their diabetes while traveling, address common travel questions, and prepare patients for emergencies that may arise while traveling.

PRE-TRIP PREPARATION

Provider visit before travel: Checking the bases

Advise patients to schedule an appointment 4 to 6 weeks before their trip.³ At this appointment, give the patient a healthcare provider travel letter (Figure 1) and prescriptions that the patient can hand-carry en route.³ The provider letter should state that the patient has diabetes and should list all supplies the patient needs. The letter should also include specific medications used by the patient and the devices that deliver these medications, eg, Humalog insulin and U-100 syringes⁴ to administer insulin, as well as any food and medication allergies.

Prescriptions should be written for patients to use in the event of an emergency during travel. Prescriptions for diabetes medications should be written with generic names to minimize confusion for those traveling internationally. Additionally, all prescriptions should provide enough medication to last throughout the trip.⁴

Advise patients that rules for filling prescriptions may vary between states and countries.³ Also, the strength of insulin may vary between the United States and other countries. Patients should understand that if they fill their insulin prescription in a foreign country, they may need to purchase new syringes to match the insulin dose. For example, if patients use U-100 syringes and purchase U-40 insulin, they will need to buy U-40 syringes or risk taking too little of a dose.

Remind patients that prescriptions are not necessary for all diabetes supplies but are essential for coverage by insurance companies. Blood glucose testing supplies, ketone strips, and glucose tablets may be purchased in a pharmacy without a prescription. Human insulin may also be purchased over the counter. However, oral medications, glucagon, and analog insulins require a prescription. We suggest that patients who travel have their prescriptions on file at a chain pharmacy rather than an independent one. If they are in the United States, they can go to any branch of the chain pharmacy and easily fill a prescription.

Work with the patient to compile a separate document that details the medication dosing, correction-scale instructions, carbohydrate-to-insulin ratios, and pump settings (basal rates, insulin sensitivity, active insulin time).⁴ Patients who use an insulin pump should record all pump settings in the event that they need to convert to insulin injections during travel.⁴ We suggest that all patients with an insulin pump have an alternate insulin method (eg, pens, vials) and that they carry this with them along with basal insulin in case the pump fails. This level of preparation empowers the patient to assume responsibility for his or her own care if a healthcare provider is not available during travel.

Like all travelers, patients with diabetes should confirm that their immunizations are up to date. Encourage patients to the CDC’s page (wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel) to check the list of vaccines necessary for their region of travel.^4,5 Many special immunizations can be acquired only from a public health department and not from a clinician’s office.

Additionally, depending on the region of travel, prescribing antibiotics or antidiarrheal medications may be necessary to ensure patient safety and comfort. We also recommend that patients with type 1 diabetes obtain a supply of antibiotics and antidiarrheals because they can become sick quickly.

Packing with diabetes: Double is better

The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients pack at least twice the medication and blood-testing supplies they anticipate needing.³ Reinforce to patients the need to pack all medications and supplies in their carry-on bag and to keep this bag in their possession at all times to avoid damage, loss, and extreme changes in temperature and air pressure, which can adversely affect the activity and stability of insulin.

Ask patients about the activities they plan to participate in and how many days they will be traveling, and then recommend shoes that will encourage appropriate foot care.⁴ Patients with diabetes should choose comfort over style when selecting footwear. All new shoes should be purchased and “broken in” 2 to 3 weeks before the trip. Alternating shoes decreases the risk of blisters and calluses.⁴

Emergency abroad: Planning to be prepared

It is crucial to counsel patients on how to respond in an emergency.

Encourage patients with diabetes, especially those who use insulin, to obtain a medical identification bracelet, necklace, or in some cases, a tattoo, that states they use insulin and discloses any allergies.³ This ensures that emergency medical personnel will be aware of the patient’s condition when providing care. Also suggest that your patients have emergency contact information available on their person and their cell phone to expedite assistance in an emergency (Table 2).

Urge patients to determine prior to their departure if their health coverage will change once they leave the state or the country. Some insurance companies require patients to go to a specific healthcare system while others regulate the amount of time a patient can be in the hospital before being transferred home. It is important for patients to be aware of these terms in the event of hospitalization.⁴ Travel insurance should be considered for international travel.

AIRPORT SECURITY: WHAT TO EXPECT WITH DIABETES

The American Diabetes Association works with the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to ensure that passengers with diabetes have access to supplies. Travelers with diabetes are allowed to apply for an optional disability notification card, which discreetly informs officers that the passenger has a condition or device that may affect screening procedures.⁶

The TSA suggests that, before going through airport screening, patients with diabetes separate their diabetes supplies from their luggage and declare all items.⁶ Including prescription labels for medications and medical devices helps speed up the security process. Advise patients to carry glucose tablets and other solid foods for treating hypoglycemia when passing through airport security checkpoints.⁷

Since 2016, the TSA has allowed all diabetes-related supplies, medications, and equipment, including liquids and devices, through security after they have been screened by the x-ray scanner or by hand.⁷ People with diabetes are allowed to carry insulin and other liquid medications in amounts greater than 3.4 ounces (100 mLs) through airport security checkpoints.

Insulin can pass safely through x-ray scanners, but if patients are concerned, they may request that their insulin be inspected by hand.⁷ Patients must inform airport security of this decision before the screening process begins. A hand inspection may include swabbing for explosives.

Patients with an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitoring device may feel uncomfortable during x-ray screening and special security screenings. Remind patients that it is TSA policy that patients do not need to disconnect their devices and can request screening by pat-down rather than x-ray scanner.⁶ It is the responsibility of the patient to research whether the pump can pass through x-ray scanners.

All patients have the right to request a pat-down and can opt out of passing through the x-ray scanner.⁶ However, patients need to inform officers about a pump before screening and must understand that the pump may be subject to further inspection. Usually, this additional inspection includes swabbing the patient’s hands to check for explosive material and a simple pat-down of the insulin pump.⁷

IN-FLIGHT TIPS

Time zones and insulin dosing

Diabetes management is often based on a 24-hour medication schedule. Travel can disrupt this schedule, making it challenging for patients to determine the appropriate medication adjustments. With some assistance, the patient can determine the best course of action based on the direction of travel and the number of time zones crossed.

According to Chandran and Edelman,⁷ medication adjustments are needed only when the patient is traveling east or west, not north or south. As time zones change, day length changes and, consequently, so does the 24-hour regimen many patients follow. As a general rule, traveling east results in a shortened day, requiring a potential reduction in insulin, while traveling west results in a longer day, possibly requiring an increase in insulin dose.⁷ However, this is a guideline and may not be applicable to all patients.⁷

Advise patients to follow local time to administer medications beginning the morning after arrival.⁷ It is not uncommon, due to changes in meal schedules and dosing, for patients to experience hyperglycemia during travel. They should be prepared to correct this if necessary.

Patients using insulin injections should plan to adjust to the new time zone as soon as possible. If the time change is only 1 or 2 hours, they should take their medications before departure according to their normal home time.⁷ Upon arrival, they should resume their insulin regimen based on the local time.

Westward travel. If the patient is traveling west with a time change of 3 or more hours, additional changes may be necessary. Advise patients to take their insulin according to their normal home time before departure. The change in dosing and schedule will depend largely on current glucose control, time of travel, and availability of food and glucose during travel. Encourage patients to discuss these matters with you in advance of any long travel.

Eastward travel. When the patient is traveling east with a time change greater than 3 hours, the day will be consequently shortened. On the day of travel, patients should take their morning dose according to home time. If they are concerned about hypoglycemia, suggest that they decrease the dose by 10%.⁶ On arrival, they should adhere to the new time zone and base insulin dosing on local time.

Advice for insulin pump users. Patients with an insulin pump need make only minimal changes to their dosing schedule. They should continue their routine of basal and bolus doses and change the time on their insulin pump to local time when they arrive. Insulin pump users should bring insulin and syringes as backup; in the event of pump malfunction, the patient should continue to use the same amount of bolus insulin to correct glucose readings and to cover meals.⁷ As for the basal dose, patients can administer a once-daily injection of long-acting insulin, which can be calculated from their pump or accessed from the list they created as part of their pre-travel preparation.⁷

Advice for patients on oral diabetes medications

If a patient is taking an oral medication, it is less crucial to adhere to a time schedule. In fact, in some cases it may be preferable to skip a dose and risk slight hyperglycemia for a few hours rather than take medication too close in time and risk hypoglycemia.⁷

Remind patients to anticipate a change in their oral medication regimen if they travel farther than 5 time zones.⁷ Encourage patients to research time changes and discuss the necessary changes in medication dosage on the day of travel as well as the specific aspects of their trip. A time-zone converter can be found at www.timeanddate.com.⁸

Insulin 101

Storing insulin at the appropriate temperature may be a concern. Insulin should be kept between 40°F and 86°F (4°C–30°C).⁴ Remind patients to carry their insulin with them at all times and to not store it in a car glove compartment or backpack where it can be exposed to excessive sun. The Frio cold pack (ReadyCare, Walnut Creek, CA) is a helpful alternative to refrigeration and can be used to cool insulin when hiking or participating in activities where insulin can overheat. These cooling gel packs are activated when exposed to cold water for 5 to 7 minutes⁵ and are reusable.

Alert patients that insulin names and concentrations may vary among countries. Most insulins are U-100 concentration, which means that for every 1 mL of liquid there are 100 units of insulin. This is the standard insulin concentration used in the United States. There are U-200, U-300, and U-500 insulins as well. In Europe, the standard concentration is U-40 insulin. Syringe sizes are designed to accommodate either U-100 or U-40 insulin. Review these differences with patients and explain the consequences of mixing insulin concentration with syringes of different sizes. Figure 2 shows how to calculate equivalent doses.

Resort tips: Food, drinks, and excursions

A large component of travel is indulging in local cuisine. Patients with diabetes need to be aware of how different foods can affect their diabetes control. Encourage them to research the foods common to the local cuisine. Websites such as Calorie King, MyFitnessPal, Lose it!, and Nutrition Data can help identify the caloric and nutritional makeup of foods.⁹

Advise patients to actively monitor how their blood glucose is affected by new foods by checking blood glucose levels before and after each meal.⁹ Opting for vegetables and protein sources minimizes glucose fluctuations. Remind patients that drinks at resorts may contain more sugar than advertised. Patients should continue to manage their blood glucose by checking levels and by making appropriate insulin adjustments based on the readings. We often advise patients to pack a jar of peanut butter when traveling to ensure a ready source of protein.

Patients who plan to participate in physically challenging activities while travelling should inform all relevant members of the activity staff of their condition. In case of an emergency, hotel staff and guides will be better equipped to help with situations such as hypoglycemia. As noted above, patients should always carry snacks and supplies to treat hypoglycemia in case no alternative food options are available during an excursion. Also, warn patients to avoid walking barefoot. Water shoes are a good alternative to protect feet from cuts and sores.

Patients should inquire about the safety of high-elevation activities. With many glucose meters, every 1,000 feet of elevation results in a 1% to 2% underestimation of blood glucose,¹⁰ which could result in an inaccurate reading. If high-altitude activities are planned, advise patients to bring multiple meters to cross-check glucose readings in cases where inaccuracies (due to elevation) are possible.

Travel, once reserved for wealthy vacationers and high-level executives, has become a regular experience for many people. The US Travel and Tourism Overview reported that US domestic travel climbed to more than 2.25 billion person-trips in 2017.¹ The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Travel Association suggest that, based on this frequency and the known rate of diabetes, 17 million people with diabetes travel annually for leisure and 5.6 million for business, and these numbers are expected to increase.²

It stands to reason that as the number of people who travel continues to increase, so too will the number of patients with diabetes seeking medical travel advice. Despite resources available to travelers with diabetes, researchers at the 2016 meeting of the American Diabetes Association noted that only 30% of patients with diabetes who responded to a survey reported being satisfied with the resources available to help them manage their diabetes while traveling.² This article discusses how clinicians can help patients manage their diabetes while traveling, address common travel questions, and prepare patients for emergencies that may arise while traveling.

PRE-TRIP PREPARATION

Provider visit before travel: Checking the bases

Advise patients to schedule an appointment 4 to 6 weeks before their trip.³ At this appointment, give the patient a healthcare provider travel letter (Figure 1) and prescriptions that the patient can hand-carry en route.³ The provider letter should state that the patient has diabetes and should list all supplies the patient needs. The letter should also include specific medications used by the patient and the devices that deliver these medications, eg, Humalog insulin and U-100 syringes⁴ to administer insulin, as well as any food and medication allergies.

Prescriptions should be written for patients to use in the event of an emergency during travel. Prescriptions for diabetes medications should be written with generic names to minimize confusion for those traveling internationally. Additionally, all prescriptions should provide enough medication to last throughout the trip.⁴

Advise patients that rules for filling prescriptions may vary between states and countries.³ Also, the strength of insulin may vary between the United States and other countries. Patients should understand that if they fill their insulin prescription in a foreign country, they may need to purchase new syringes to match the insulin dose. For example, if patients use U-100 syringes and purchase U-40 insulin, they will need to buy U-40 syringes or risk taking too little of a dose.

Remind patients that prescriptions are not necessary for all diabetes supplies but are essential for coverage by insurance companies. Blood glucose testing supplies, ketone strips, and glucose tablets may be purchased in a pharmacy without a prescription. Human insulin may also be purchased over the counter. However, oral medications, glucagon, and analog insulins require a prescription. We suggest that patients who travel have their prescriptions on file at a chain pharmacy rather than an independent one. If they are in the United States, they can go to any branch of the chain pharmacy and easily fill a prescription.

Work with the patient to compile a separate document that details the medication dosing, correction-scale instructions, carbohydrate-to-insulin ratios, and pump settings (basal rates, insulin sensitivity, active insulin time).⁴ Patients who use an insulin pump should record all pump settings in the event that they need to convert to insulin injections during travel.⁴ We suggest that all patients with an insulin pump have an alternate insulin method (eg, pens, vials) and that they carry this with them along with basal insulin in case the pump fails. This level of preparation empowers the patient to assume responsibility for his or her own care if a healthcare provider is not available during travel.

Like all travelers, patients with diabetes should confirm that their immunizations are up to date. Encourage patients to the CDC’s page (wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel) to check the list of vaccines necessary for their region of travel.^4,5 Many special immunizations can be acquired only from a public health department and not from a clinician’s office.

Additionally, depending on the region of travel, prescribing antibiotics or antidiarrheal medications may be necessary to ensure patient safety and comfort. We also recommend that patients with type 1 diabetes obtain a supply of antibiotics and antidiarrheals because they can become sick quickly.

Packing with diabetes: Double is better

The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients pack at least twice the medication and blood-testing supplies they anticipate needing.³ Reinforce to patients the need to pack all medications and supplies in their carry-on bag and to keep this bag in their possession at all times to avoid damage, loss, and extreme changes in temperature and air pressure, which can adversely affect the activity and stability of insulin.

Ask patients about the activities they plan to participate in and how many days they will be traveling, and then recommend shoes that will encourage appropriate foot care.⁴ Patients with diabetes should choose comfort over style when selecting footwear. All new shoes should be purchased and “broken in” 2 to 3 weeks before the trip. Alternating shoes decreases the risk of blisters and calluses.⁴

Emergency abroad: Planning to be prepared

It is crucial to counsel patients on how to respond in an emergency.

Encourage patients with diabetes, especially those who use insulin, to obtain a medical identification bracelet, necklace, or in some cases, a tattoo, that states they use insulin and discloses any allergies.³ This ensures that emergency medical personnel will be aware of the patient’s condition when providing care. Also suggest that your patients have emergency contact information available on their person and their cell phone to expedite assistance in an emergency (Table 2).

Urge patients to determine prior to their departure if their health coverage will change once they leave the state or the country. Some insurance companies require patients to go to a specific healthcare system while others regulate the amount of time a patient can be in the hospital before being transferred home. It is important for patients to be aware of these terms in the event of hospitalization.⁴ Travel insurance should be considered for international travel.

AIRPORT SECURITY: WHAT TO EXPECT WITH DIABETES

The American Diabetes Association works with the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to ensure that passengers with diabetes have access to supplies. Travelers with diabetes are allowed to apply for an optional disability notification card, which discreetly informs officers that the passenger has a condition or device that may affect screening procedures.⁶

The TSA suggests that, before going through airport screening, patients with diabetes separate their diabetes supplies from their luggage and declare all items.⁶ Including prescription labels for medications and medical devices helps speed up the security process. Advise patients to carry glucose tablets and other solid foods for treating hypoglycemia when passing through airport security checkpoints.⁷

Since 2016, the TSA has allowed all diabetes-related supplies, medications, and equipment, including liquids and devices, through security after they have been screened by the x-ray scanner or by hand.⁷ People with diabetes are allowed to carry insulin and other liquid medications in amounts greater than 3.4 ounces (100 mLs) through airport security checkpoints.

Insulin can pass safely through x-ray scanners, but if patients are concerned, they may request that their insulin be inspected by hand.⁷ Patients must inform airport security of this decision before the screening process begins. A hand inspection may include swabbing for explosives.

Patients with an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitoring device may feel uncomfortable during x-ray screening and special security screenings. Remind patients that it is TSA policy that patients do not need to disconnect their devices and can request screening by pat-down rather than x-ray scanner.⁶ It is the responsibility of the patient to research whether the pump can pass through x-ray scanners.

All patients have the right to request a pat-down and can opt out of passing through the x-ray scanner.⁶ However, patients need to inform officers about a pump before screening and must understand that the pump may be subject to further inspection. Usually, this additional inspection includes swabbing the patient’s hands to check for explosive material and a simple pat-down of the insulin pump.⁷

IN-FLIGHT TIPS

Time zones and insulin dosing

Diabetes management is often based on a 24-hour medication schedule. Travel can disrupt this schedule, making it challenging for patients to determine the appropriate medication adjustments. With some assistance, the patient can determine the best course of action based on the direction of travel and the number of time zones crossed.

According to Chandran and Edelman,⁷ medication adjustments are needed only when the patient is traveling east or west, not north or south. As time zones change, day length changes and, consequently, so does the 24-hour regimen many patients follow. As a general rule, traveling east results in a shortened day, requiring a potential reduction in insulin, while traveling west results in a longer day, possibly requiring an increase in insulin dose.⁷ However, this is a guideline and may not be applicable to all patients.⁷

Advise patients to follow local time to administer medications beginning the morning after arrival.⁷ It is not uncommon, due to changes in meal schedules and dosing, for patients to experience hyperglycemia during travel. They should be prepared to correct this if necessary.

Patients using insulin injections should plan to adjust to the new time zone as soon as possible. If the time change is only 1 or 2 hours, they should take their medications before departure according to their normal home time.⁷ Upon arrival, they should resume their insulin regimen based on the local time.

Westward travel. If the patient is traveling west with a time change of 3 or more hours, additional changes may be necessary. Advise patients to take their insulin according to their normal home time before departure. The change in dosing and schedule will depend largely on current glucose control, time of travel, and availability of food and glucose during travel. Encourage patients to discuss these matters with you in advance of any long travel.

Eastward travel. When the patient is traveling east with a time change greater than 3 hours, the day will be consequently shortened. On the day of travel, patients should take their morning dose according to home time. If they are concerned about hypoglycemia, suggest that they decrease the dose by 10%.⁶ On arrival, they should adhere to the new time zone and base insulin dosing on local time.

Advice for insulin pump users. Patients with an insulin pump need make only minimal changes to their dosing schedule. They should continue their routine of basal and bolus doses and change the time on their insulin pump to local time when they arrive. Insulin pump users should bring insulin and syringes as backup; in the event of pump malfunction, the patient should continue to use the same amount of bolus insulin to correct glucose readings and to cover meals.⁷ As for the basal dose, patients can administer a once-daily injection of long-acting insulin, which can be calculated from their pump or accessed from the list they created as part of their pre-travel preparation.⁷

Advice for patients on oral diabetes medications

If a patient is taking an oral medication, it is less crucial to adhere to a time schedule. In fact, in some cases it may be preferable to skip a dose and risk slight hyperglycemia for a few hours rather than take medication too close in time and risk hypoglycemia.⁷

Remind patients to anticipate a change in their oral medication regimen if they travel farther than 5 time zones.⁷ Encourage patients to research time changes and discuss the necessary changes in medication dosage on the day of travel as well as the specific aspects of their trip. A time-zone converter can be found at www.timeanddate.com.⁸

Insulin 101

Storing insulin at the appropriate temperature may be a concern. Insulin should be kept between 40°F and 86°F (4°C–30°C).⁴ Remind patients to carry their insulin with them at all times and to not store it in a car glove compartment or backpack where it can be exposed to excessive sun. The Frio cold pack (ReadyCare, Walnut Creek, CA) is a helpful alternative to refrigeration and can be used to cool insulin when hiking or participating in activities where insulin can overheat. These cooling gel packs are activated when exposed to cold water for 5 to 7 minutes⁵ and are reusable.

Alert patients that insulin names and concentrations may vary among countries. Most insulins are U-100 concentration, which means that for every 1 mL of liquid there are 100 units of insulin. This is the standard insulin concentration used in the United States. There are U-200, U-300, and U-500 insulins as well. In Europe, the standard concentration is U-40 insulin. Syringe sizes are designed to accommodate either U-100 or U-40 insulin. Review these differences with patients and explain the consequences of mixing insulin concentration with syringes of different sizes. Figure 2 shows how to calculate equivalent doses.

Resort tips: Food, drinks, and excursions

A large component of travel is indulging in local cuisine. Patients with diabetes need to be aware of how different foods can affect their diabetes control. Encourage them to research the foods common to the local cuisine. Websites such as Calorie King, MyFitnessPal, Lose it!, and Nutrition Data can help identify the caloric and nutritional makeup of foods.⁹

Advise patients to actively monitor how their blood glucose is affected by new foods by checking blood glucose levels before and after each meal.⁹ Opting for vegetables and protein sources minimizes glucose fluctuations. Remind patients that drinks at resorts may contain more sugar than advertised. Patients should continue to manage their blood glucose by checking levels and by making appropriate insulin adjustments based on the readings. We often advise patients to pack a jar of peanut butter when traveling to ensure a ready source of protein.

Patients who plan to participate in physically challenging activities while travelling should inform all relevant members of the activity staff of their condition. In case of an emergency, hotel staff and guides will be better equipped to help with situations such as hypoglycemia. As noted above, patients should always carry snacks and supplies to treat hypoglycemia in case no alternative food options are available during an excursion. Also, warn patients to avoid walking barefoot. Water shoes are a good alternative to protect feet from cuts and sores.

Patients should inquire about the safety of high-elevation activities. With many glucose meters, every 1,000 feet of elevation results in a 1% to 2% underestimation of blood glucose,¹⁰ which could result in an inaccurate reading. If high-altitude activities are planned, advise patients to bring multiple meters to cross-check glucose readings in cases where inaccuracies (due to elevation) are possible.

Travel, once reserved for wealthy vacationers and high-level executives, has become a regular experience for many people. The US Travel and Tourism Overview reported that US domestic travel climbed to more than 2.25 billion person-trips in 2017.¹ The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Travel Association suggest that, based on this frequency and the known rate of diabetes, 17 million people with diabetes travel annually for leisure and 5.6 million for business, and these numbers are expected to increase.²

It stands to reason that as the number of people who travel continues to increase, so too will the number of patients with diabetes seeking medical travel advice. Despite resources available to travelers with diabetes, researchers at the 2016 meeting of the American Diabetes Association noted that only 30% of patients with diabetes who responded to a survey reported being satisfied with the resources available to help them manage their diabetes while traveling.² This article discusses how clinicians can help patients manage their diabetes while traveling, address common travel questions, and prepare patients for emergencies that may arise while traveling.

PRE-TRIP PREPARATION

Provider visit before travel: Checking the bases

Advise patients to schedule an appointment 4 to 6 weeks before their trip.³ At this appointment, give the patient a healthcare provider travel letter (Figure 1) and prescriptions that the patient can hand-carry en route.³ The provider letter should state that the patient has diabetes and should list all supplies the patient needs. The letter should also include specific medications used by the patient and the devices that deliver these medications, eg, Humalog insulin and U-100 syringes⁴ to administer insulin, as well as any food and medication allergies.

Prescriptions should be written for patients to use in the event of an emergency during travel. Prescriptions for diabetes medications should be written with generic names to minimize confusion for those traveling internationally. Additionally, all prescriptions should provide enough medication to last throughout the trip.⁴

Advise patients that rules for filling prescriptions may vary between states and countries.³ Also, the strength of insulin may vary between the United States and other countries. Patients should understand that if they fill their insulin prescription in a foreign country, they may need to purchase new syringes to match the insulin dose. For example, if patients use U-100 syringes and purchase U-40 insulin, they will need to buy U-40 syringes or risk taking too little of a dose.

Remind patients that prescriptions are not necessary for all diabetes supplies but are essential for coverage by insurance companies. Blood glucose testing supplies, ketone strips, and glucose tablets may be purchased in a pharmacy without a prescription. Human insulin may also be purchased over the counter. However, oral medications, glucagon, and analog insulins require a prescription. We suggest that patients who travel have their prescriptions on file at a chain pharmacy rather than an independent one. If they are in the United States, they can go to any branch of the chain pharmacy and easily fill a prescription.

Work with the patient to compile a separate document that details the medication dosing, correction-scale instructions, carbohydrate-to-insulin ratios, and pump settings (basal rates, insulin sensitivity, active insulin time).⁴ Patients who use an insulin pump should record all pump settings in the event that they need to convert to insulin injections during travel.⁴ We suggest that all patients with an insulin pump have an alternate insulin method (eg, pens, vials) and that they carry this with them along with basal insulin in case the pump fails. This level of preparation empowers the patient to assume responsibility for his or her own care if a healthcare provider is not available during travel.

Like all travelers, patients with diabetes should confirm that their immunizations are up to date. Encourage patients to the CDC’s page (wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel) to check the list of vaccines necessary for their region of travel.^4,5 Many special immunizations can be acquired only from a public health department and not from a clinician’s office.

Additionally, depending on the region of travel, prescribing antibiotics or antidiarrheal medications may be necessary to ensure patient safety and comfort. We also recommend that patients with type 1 diabetes obtain a supply of antibiotics and antidiarrheals because they can become sick quickly.

Packing with diabetes: Double is better

The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients pack at least twice the medication and blood-testing supplies they anticipate needing.³ Reinforce to patients the need to pack all medications and supplies in their carry-on bag and to keep this bag in their possession at all times to avoid damage, loss, and extreme changes in temperature and air pressure, which can adversely affect the activity and stability of insulin.

Ask patients about the activities they plan to participate in and how many days they will be traveling, and then recommend shoes that will encourage appropriate foot care.⁴ Patients with diabetes should choose comfort over style when selecting footwear. All new shoes should be purchased and “broken in” 2 to 3 weeks before the trip. Alternating shoes decreases the risk of blisters and calluses.⁴

Emergency abroad: Planning to be prepared

It is crucial to counsel patients on how to respond in an emergency.

Encourage patients with diabetes, especially those who use insulin, to obtain a medical identification bracelet, necklace, or in some cases, a tattoo, that states they use insulin and discloses any allergies.³ This ensures that emergency medical personnel will be aware of the patient’s condition when providing care. Also suggest that your patients have emergency contact information available on their person and their cell phone to expedite assistance in an emergency (Table 2).

Urge patients to determine prior to their departure if their health coverage will change once they leave the state or the country. Some insurance companies require patients to go to a specific healthcare system while others regulate the amount of time a patient can be in the hospital before being transferred home. It is important for patients to be aware of these terms in the event of hospitalization.⁴ Travel insurance should be considered for international travel.

AIRPORT SECURITY: WHAT TO EXPECT WITH DIABETES

The American Diabetes Association works with the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to ensure that passengers with diabetes have access to supplies. Travelers with diabetes are allowed to apply for an optional disability notification card, which discreetly informs officers that the passenger has a condition or device that may affect screening procedures.⁶

The TSA suggests that, before going through airport screening, patients with diabetes separate their diabetes supplies from their luggage and declare all items.⁶ Including prescription labels for medications and medical devices helps speed up the security process. Advise patients to carry glucose tablets and other solid foods for treating hypoglycemia when passing through airport security checkpoints.⁷

Since 2016, the TSA has allowed all diabetes-related supplies, medications, and equipment, including liquids and devices, through security after they have been screened by the x-ray scanner or by hand.⁷ People with diabetes are allowed to carry insulin and other liquid medications in amounts greater than 3.4 ounces (100 mLs) through airport security checkpoints.

Insulin can pass safely through x-ray scanners, but if patients are concerned, they may request that their insulin be inspected by hand.⁷ Patients must inform airport security of this decision before the screening process begins. A hand inspection may include swabbing for explosives.

Patients with an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitoring device may feel uncomfortable during x-ray screening and special security screenings. Remind patients that it is TSA policy that patients do not need to disconnect their devices and can request screening by pat-down rather than x-ray scanner.⁶ It is the responsibility of the patient to research whether the pump can pass through x-ray scanners.

All patients have the right to request a pat-down and can opt out of passing through the x-ray scanner.⁶ However, patients need to inform officers about a pump before screening and must understand that the pump may be subject to further inspection. Usually, this additional inspection includes swabbing the patient’s hands to check for explosive material and a simple pat-down of the insulin pump.⁷

IN-FLIGHT TIPS

Time zones and insulin dosing

Diabetes management is often based on a 24-hour medication schedule. Travel can disrupt this schedule, making it challenging for patients to determine the appropriate medication adjustments. With some assistance, the patient can determine the best course of action based on the direction of travel and the number of time zones crossed.

According to Chandran and Edelman,⁷ medication adjustments are needed only when the patient is traveling east or west, not north or south. As time zones change, day length changes and, consequently, so does the 24-hour regimen many patients follow. As a general rule, traveling east results in a shortened day, requiring a potential reduction in insulin, while traveling west results in a longer day, possibly requiring an increase in insulin dose.⁷ However, this is a guideline and may not be applicable to all patients.⁷

Advise patients to follow local time to administer medications beginning the morning after arrival.⁷ It is not uncommon, due to changes in meal schedules and dosing, for patients to experience hyperglycemia during travel. They should be prepared to correct this if necessary.

Patients using insulin injections should plan to adjust to the new time zone as soon as possible. If the time change is only 1 or 2 hours, they should take their medications before departure according to their normal home time.⁷ Upon arrival, they should resume their insulin regimen based on the local time.

Westward travel. If the patient is traveling west with a time change of 3 or more hours, additional changes may be necessary. Advise patients to take their insulin according to their normal home time before departure. The change in dosing and schedule will depend largely on current glucose control, time of travel, and availability of food and glucose during travel. Encourage patients to discuss these matters with you in advance of any long travel.

Eastward travel. When the patient is traveling east with a time change greater than 3 hours, the day will be consequently shortened. On the day of travel, patients should take their morning dose according to home time. If they are concerned about hypoglycemia, suggest that they decrease the dose by 10%.⁶ On arrival, they should adhere to the new time zone and base insulin dosing on local time.

Advice for insulin pump users. Patients with an insulin pump need make only minimal changes to their dosing schedule. They should continue their routine of basal and bolus doses and change the time on their insulin pump to local time when they arrive. Insulin pump users should bring insulin and syringes as backup; in the event of pump malfunction, the patient should continue to use the same amount of bolus insulin to correct glucose readings and to cover meals.⁷ As for the basal dose, patients can administer a once-daily injection of long-acting insulin, which can be calculated from their pump or accessed from the list they created as part of their pre-travel preparation.⁷

Advice for patients on oral diabetes medications

If a patient is taking an oral medication, it is less crucial to adhere to a time schedule. In fact, in some cases it may be preferable to skip a dose and risk slight hyperglycemia for a few hours rather than take medication too close in time and risk hypoglycemia.⁷

Remind patients to anticipate a change in their oral medication regimen if they travel farther than 5 time zones.⁷ Encourage patients to research time changes and discuss the necessary changes in medication dosage on the day of travel as well as the specific aspects of their trip. A time-zone converter can be found at www.timeanddate.com.⁸

Insulin 101

Storing insulin at the appropriate temperature may be a concern. Insulin should be kept between 40°F and 86°F (4°C–30°C).⁴ Remind patients to carry their insulin with them at all times and to not store it in a car glove compartment or backpack where it can be exposed to excessive sun. The Frio cold pack (ReadyCare, Walnut Creek, CA) is a helpful alternative to refrigeration and can be used to cool insulin when hiking or participating in activities where insulin can overheat. These cooling gel packs are activated when exposed to cold water for 5 to 7 minutes⁵ and are reusable.

Alert patients that insulin names and concentrations may vary among countries. Most insulins are U-100 concentration, which means that for every 1 mL of liquid there are 100 units of insulin. This is the standard insulin concentration used in the United States. There are U-200, U-300, and U-500 insulins as well. In Europe, the standard concentration is U-40 insulin. Syringe sizes are designed to accommodate either U-100 or U-40 insulin. Review these differences with patients and explain the consequences of mixing insulin concentration with syringes of different sizes. Figure 2 shows how to calculate equivalent doses.

Resort tips: Food, drinks, and excursions

A large component of travel is indulging in local cuisine. Patients with diabetes need to be aware of how different foods can affect their diabetes control. Encourage them to research the foods common to the local cuisine. Websites such as Calorie King, MyFitnessPal, Lose it!, and Nutrition Data can help identify the caloric and nutritional makeup of foods.⁹

Advise patients to actively monitor how their blood glucose is affected by new foods by checking blood glucose levels before and after each meal.⁹ Opting for vegetables and protein sources minimizes glucose fluctuations. Remind patients that drinks at resorts may contain more sugar than advertised. Patients should continue to manage their blood glucose by checking levels and by making appropriate insulin adjustments based on the readings. We often advise patients to pack a jar of peanut butter when traveling to ensure a ready source of protein.

Patients who plan to participate in physically challenging activities while travelling should inform all relevant members of the activity staff of their condition. In case of an emergency, hotel staff and guides will be better equipped to help with situations such as hypoglycemia. As noted above, patients should always carry snacks and supplies to treat hypoglycemia in case no alternative food options are available during an excursion. Also, warn patients to avoid walking barefoot. Water shoes are a good alternative to protect feet from cuts and sores.

Patients should inquire about the safety of high-elevation activities. With many glucose meters, every 1,000 feet of elevation results in a 1% to 2% underestimation of blood glucose,¹⁰ which could result in an inaccurate reading. If high-altitude activities are planned, advise patients to bring multiple meters to cross-check glucose readings in cases where inaccuracies (due to elevation) are possible.

In June 2017, a 4-year-old boy died 1 week after being knocked over and briefly submerged while playing in knee-deep water. This story was widely reported as a case of a rare occurrence called “dry” or “secondary” drowning, depending on the source.¹ The media accounts went viral, spreading fear in parents and others learning about these alleged conditions from the news and social media.

Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported every year, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medically recognized diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not).

Drowning is one of the most common causes of death in children, and so we ought to make sure that the information we share about it is accurate, as it is vital to effective prevention, rescue, and treatment.

Unfortunately, medical providers, medical journals, and the mass media continue to disseminate misinformation on drowning.² These reports often prevail over updated information and hinder accurate understanding of the drowning problem and its solutions.

Every death is tragic, especially the death of a child, and our heartfelt sympathies go out to the family in this alleged drowning case, as well as to all families suffering the loss of a loved one to drowning. However, in the 2017 case, the cause of death was found on autopsy to be myocarditis not related in any way to drowning. As often happens in such situations, this clarification did not receive any media attention, despite the wide reporting and penetration of the original, erroneous story.

We hope our review will reduce misunderstanding among the public and healthcare providers, contribute to improved data collection, and help to promote interventions aimed at prevention, rescue, and mitigation of drowning incidents.

WHAT IS DROWNING?

A consensus committee of the World Health Organization defined drowning as “the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid.”³ The process begins when the victim’s airway goes below the surface of the liquid (submersion) or when water splashes over the face (immersion). If the victim is rescued at any time, the process is interrupted, and this is termed a nonfatal drowning. If the victim dies at any time, this is a fatal drowning. Any water-distress incident without evidence of respiratory impairment (ie, without aspiration) should be considered a water rescue and not a drowning.

Rarely do minimally symptomatic cases progress to death, just as most cases of chest pain do not progress to cardiac arrest.⁴ Nonetheless, rescued drowning victims can deteriorate, which is why we encourage people to seek medical care immediately upon warning signs, as we do with chest pain. For drowning, such warning signs are any water distress followed by difficulty breathing, excessive coughing, foam in the mouth, or abnormal behavior.

A SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE

Drowning is a serious and neglected public health issue, claiming the lives of 372,000 people a year worldwide.⁵ It is a leading cause of death in children ages 1 to 14. The toll continues largely unabated, and in low- and middle-income nations it does not attract the levels of funding that go to other forms of injury prevention, such as road safety.

Nonfatal drowning—with symptoms ranging from mild cough to severe pulmonary edema, and complications ranging from none to severe neurologic impairment—is far more common than fatal drowning.⁶ For every fatal drowning, there are at least 5 nonfatal drowning incidents in which medical care is needed, and 200 rescues are performed.^7–10

In the United States, drowning accounts for almost 13,000 emergency department visits per year and about 3,500 deaths.^7,8

In Brazil, with two-thirds the population of the United States, drowning accounts for far fewer hospital visits but about twice as many deaths. In Rio de Janeiro, where a highly effective and specialized prehospital service is provided at 3 drowning resuscitation centers staffed by medical doctors, an analysis of the 46,060 cases of rescue in 10 years from 1991 to 2000 showed that medical assistance was needed in only 930 cases (2%).¹⁰ The preventive and rescue actions of parents, bystanders, lifeguards, and prehospital rescue services significantly reduce the number of drowning deaths, but these groups do not consistently gather data on nonfatal drowning that can be included in a comprehensive database.

DROWNING IS A PROCESS

When a person in the water can no longer keep the airway clear, water that enters the mouth is voluntarily spit out or swallowed. Within a few seconds to minutes, the person can no longer clear the airways and water is aspirated, stimulating the cough reflex. Laryngo­spasm, another myth concerning drowning, is presumed to protect the airways but does not, as it is rare, occurring in less than 2% of cases.^11,12

If the person is not rescued, aspiration of water continues, and hypoxemia leads to loss of consciousness and apnea within seconds to a few minutes, followed by cardiac arrest. As a consequence, hypoxemic cardiac arrest generally occurs after a period of tachycardia followed by bradycardia and pulseless electrical activity, usually leading to asystole.^13,14

The entire drowning process, from water distress to cardiac arrest, usually takes a few minutes, but in rare situations, such as rapid hypothermia, it can go on for up to an hour.¹⁵ Most drowning patients have an otherwise healthy heart, and the apnea and hypoxemia precede the cardiac arrest by only a few seconds to minutes; thus, cardiac arrest is caused by the hypoxemic insult and not by ventricular dysrhythmias.^6,16

Drowning can be interrupted at any point between distress and death. If the person is rescued early, the clinical picture is determined by the reactivity of the airway and the amount of water that has been aspirated, but not by the type of water (salt or fresh).

Another myth is that drowning in salt water is different from drowning in fresh water. Both salt water and fresh water cause similar surfactant destruction and washout and disrupt the alveolar-capillary membrane. Disruption of the alveolar-capillary membrane increases its permeability and exacerbates shifting of fluid, plasma, and electrolytes into the alveoli.¹³ The clinical picture of the damage is one of regional or generalized pulmonary edema, which interferes with gas exchange in the lungs.^6,13,17

Animal studies by Modell et al showed that aspiration of just 2.2 mL of water per kilogram of body weight is sufficient to cause severe disturbances in oxygen exchange,¹⁷ reflected in a rise in arterial pH and a drop in partial pressure of oxygen. The situation must be similar in humans. In a 70-kg person, this is only about 154 mL of water—about two-thirds of a cup.

The combined effects of fluid in the lungs, the loss of surfactant, and the increase in capillary-alveolar permeability can result in decreased lung compliance, increased right-to-left shunting in the lungs, atelectasis, alveolitis, hypoxemia, and cerebral hypoxia.¹³

If the victim needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the possibility of neurologic damage is similar to that in other cardiac arrest situations, but exceptions exist. For example, in rare cases, hypothermia provides a protective mechanism that allows victims to survive prolonged submersion.^4,15

The duration of submersion is the best predictor of death.¹⁸ Underwater, people are not taking in oxygen, and cerebral hypoxia causes both morbidity and death. For this reason, reversing cerebral hypoxia with effective ventilation, oxygen, and chest compression is the priority of treatment.

“Near drowning,” “dry drowning,” “wet drowning,” “delayed drowning,” and “secondary drowning” are not medically accepted diagnoses,^3,4,19 and many organizations and lifesaving institutions around the world discourage the use of these terms.^19,20 Unfortunately, these terms still slip past the editors of medical journals and are thus perpetuated. The terms are most pervasive in the nonmedical media, where drowning seems to be synonymous with death.^3,19,21 We urge all authors and stakeholders to abandon these terms in favor of understanding and communicating drowning as a process that can vary in severity and have a fatal or nonfatal outcome.

Near-drowning

Historically, drowning meant death, while near-drowning meant the victim survived, at least initially (usually for at least 24 hours).

Before 2002, there were 13 different published definitions of near-drowning.^21,22 This variability has caused a great deal of confusion when trying to describe and monitor drowning.

A person can drown and survive, just as a person can have cardiac arrest and survive.^4,21 Just as there is no recognized condition of “near-cardiac arrest,” there is also no condition of near-drowning. Using near-drowning as a medical diagnosis hides the true burden of drowning and consequently amplifies difficulties in developing effective prevention, rescue, and treatment programs.

Dry drowning

Dry drowning has never been an accepted medical term, although it has been used to describe different parts of the drowning process. While many authors use it as a synonym for secondary drowning (described below), in the past it was usually used in cases in which no water was found in the lungs at autopsy in persons who were found dead in the water.^2–4,21 This occurred in about 10% to 15% of cases and was also called drowning “without water aspiration.”

Perhaps some victims suffer sudden cardiac death. It happens on land—why not in the water? Modell et al stated, “In the absence of the common finding of significant pulmonary edema in the victim’s respiratory system, to conclude his or her death was caused by ‘drowning without aspiration’ is unwise.”²³

Laryngospasm is another proposed explanation. It could play a role in the fewer than 2% of cases in which no other cause of death is found on clinical examination or autopsy,^11,12,19,23 but it does not occur in most cases of drowning, or it is brief and is terminated by the respiratory movements that allow the air in the lung to escape and water to be inhaled.

The problem with the term dry drowning is the harm caused by misdiagnosing cases of sudden death as drowning, when an alternative cause is present. Most importantly, the management is the same if small amounts of water are present or not; therefore, no clinical distinction is made between wet and dry drowning.

Secondary drowning

Secondary drowning, sometimes called delayed drowning, is another term that is not medically accepted. The historical use of this term reflects the reality that some patients may worsen due to pulmonary edema after aspirating small amounts of water.

Drowning starts with aspiration, and few or only mild symptoms may be present as soon as the person is removed from the water. Either the small amount of water in the lungs is absorbed and causes no complications or, rarely, the patient’s condition becomes progressively worse over the next few hours as the alveoli become inflamed and the alveolar-capillary membrane is disrupted. But people do not unexpectedly die of drowning days or weeks later with no preceding symptoms. The lungs and heart do not “fill up with water,” and water does not need to be pumped out of the lungs.

There has never been a case published in the medical literature of a patient who underwent clinical evaluation, was initially without symptoms, and later deteriorated and died more than 8 hours after the incident.^6,10,21 People who have drowned and have minimal symptoms get better (usually) or worse (rarely) within 4 to 8 hours. In a study of more than 41,000 lifeguard rescues, only 0.5% of symptomatic patients died.⁶

Drowning secondary to injury or sudden illness

Any injury, trauma, or sudden illness that can cause loss of consciousness or mental or physical weakness can lead to drowning. Physicians need to recognize these situations to treat them appropriately. Drowning that is secondary to other primary insults can be classified as²⁴:

• Drowning caused by injury or trauma (eg, a surfing, boating, or a hang-gliding accident)
• Drowning caused by a sudden illness such as cardiac disease (eg, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, prolonged QT syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) or neurologic disease (eg, epilepsy, stroke)
• Diving disease (eg, decompression sickness, pulmonary overpressurization syndrome, compression barotrauma, narcosis [“rapture of the deep”], shallow water blackout, immersion pulmonary edema).

PREVENTION IS BEST

Drowning is a leading and preventable cause of death worldwide and for people of all ages. The danger is real, not esoteric or rare, and healthcare providers should use any opportunity to discuss with patients, parents, and the media the most important tool for treating drowning: primary prevention.

For example, small children should be continuously and uninterruptedly supervised within arm’s reach while in the water, even if a lifeguard is present. Other preventive measures are lifejackets, fences completely enclosing pools or ponds, and swimming and water safety lessons. Drowning often occurs in a deceptively pleasant environment that may not seem dangerous.

When preventive measures fail, responders (usually a health professional is involved) need to be able to perform the necessary steps to interrupt the drowning process.

The first challenge is to recognize when someone in the water is at risk of drowning and needs to be rescued.²⁵ Early self-rescue or rescue by others may stop the drowning process and prevent most cases of initial and subsequent water aspiration, respiratory distress, and medical complications.

DON’T BECOME A VICTIM

Rescuers must take care not to become victims themselves. Panicked swimmers can thrash about and injure the rescuer or clutch at anything they encounter, dragging the rescuer under. And the rescuer can succumb to the same hazards that got the victim into trouble, such as strong currents, deep water, or underwater hazards.

Certified lifeguards are trained to get victims out of the water safely. The American Red Cross slogan “Reach or throw, don’t go” means “Reach out with a pole or other object or throw something that floats; don’t get in the water yourself.”

WHAT TO TELL THE PUBLIC

While some journalists acknowledge that the terms dry drowning and secondary drowning are medically discredited, they still use them in their reports. The novelty of this story—and its appeal to media outlets—is precisely the unfamiliarity of these terms to the general public and the perceived mysterious, looming threat.

We often hear that these terms are more familiar to the public, which is likely true. More concerning, some physicians continue to use them (and older definitions of drowning that equate it with death) in media interviews, clinical care, and publications. The paradox is that we, the medical community, invented these terms, not patients or the media.

As clinicians and researchers, we should drive popular culture definitions, not the other way around. Rather than dismiss these terms as “semantics” or “technicalities,” we should take the opportunity to highlight the dangers of drowning and the importance of prevention, and to promote simpler language that is easier for us and our patients to understand.^19,21

Healthcare providers should understand and share modern drowning science and best practices, which will reduce fear, improve resource utilization, and prevent potentially deadly consequences due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of incorrect terminology.

WHEN PATIENTS SHOULD SEEK CARE

Anyone who experiences cough, breathless­ness, or other worrisome symptoms such as abnormal mentation within 8 hours of a drowning incident (using the modern definition above) should seek medical advice immediately.

We tell people to seek care if symptoms seem any worse than the experience of a drink “going down the wrong pipe” at the dinner table.²¹ But symptoms can be minimal. Careful attention should be given to mild symptoms that get progressively worse during that time. These cases can rarely progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Table 1 explores who needs further medical help after being rescued from the water.²⁶

In most of these cases, it is most appropriate to call an ambulance, but care may involve seeing a doctor depending on the severity of the symptoms.^6,21 Usually, drowning patients are observed for 4 to 8 hours in an emergency department and are discharged if normal. Symptoms that are more significant include persistent cough, foam at the mouth or nose, confusion, or abnormal behavior, and these require further medical evaluation.

Patients should also seek medical care even if they are 100% normal upon exiting the water but develop worrisome symptoms more than 8 hours later, and providers should consider diagnoses other than primary drowning. Spontaneous pneumothorax, chemical pneumonitis, bacterial or viral pneumonia, head injury, asthma, chest trauma, and acute respiratory distress syndrome have been mislabeled as delayed, dry, or secondary drowning.^3,4,19,21

In June 2017, a 4-year-old boy died 1 week after being knocked over and briefly submerged while playing in knee-deep water. This story was widely reported as a case of a rare occurrence called “dry” or “secondary” drowning, depending on the source.¹ The media accounts went viral, spreading fear in parents and others learning about these alleged conditions from the news and social media.

Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported every year, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medically recognized diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not).

Drowning is one of the most common causes of death in children, and so we ought to make sure that the information we share about it is accurate, as it is vital to effective prevention, rescue, and treatment.

Unfortunately, medical providers, medical journals, and the mass media continue to disseminate misinformation on drowning.² These reports often prevail over updated information and hinder accurate understanding of the drowning problem and its solutions.

Every death is tragic, especially the death of a child, and our heartfelt sympathies go out to the family in this alleged drowning case, as well as to all families suffering the loss of a loved one to drowning. However, in the 2017 case, the cause of death was found on autopsy to be myocarditis not related in any way to drowning. As often happens in such situations, this clarification did not receive any media attention, despite the wide reporting and penetration of the original, erroneous story.

We hope our review will reduce misunderstanding among the public and healthcare providers, contribute to improved data collection, and help to promote interventions aimed at prevention, rescue, and mitigation of drowning incidents.

WHAT IS DROWNING?

A consensus committee of the World Health Organization defined drowning as “the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid.”³ The process begins when the victim’s airway goes below the surface of the liquid (submersion) or when water splashes over the face (immersion). If the victim is rescued at any time, the process is interrupted, and this is termed a nonfatal drowning. If the victim dies at any time, this is a fatal drowning. Any water-distress incident without evidence of respiratory impairment (ie, without aspiration) should be considered a water rescue and not a drowning.

Rarely do minimally symptomatic cases progress to death, just as most cases of chest pain do not progress to cardiac arrest.⁴ Nonetheless, rescued drowning victims can deteriorate, which is why we encourage people to seek medical care immediately upon warning signs, as we do with chest pain. For drowning, such warning signs are any water distress followed by difficulty breathing, excessive coughing, foam in the mouth, or abnormal behavior.

A SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE

Drowning is a serious and neglected public health issue, claiming the lives of 372,000 people a year worldwide.⁵ It is a leading cause of death in children ages 1 to 14. The toll continues largely unabated, and in low- and middle-income nations it does not attract the levels of funding that go to other forms of injury prevention, such as road safety.

Nonfatal drowning—with symptoms ranging from mild cough to severe pulmonary edema, and complications ranging from none to severe neurologic impairment—is far more common than fatal drowning.⁶ For every fatal drowning, there are at least 5 nonfatal drowning incidents in which medical care is needed, and 200 rescues are performed.^7–10

In the United States, drowning accounts for almost 13,000 emergency department visits per year and about 3,500 deaths.^7,8

In Brazil, with two-thirds the population of the United States, drowning accounts for far fewer hospital visits but about twice as many deaths. In Rio de Janeiro, where a highly effective and specialized prehospital service is provided at 3 drowning resuscitation centers staffed by medical doctors, an analysis of the 46,060 cases of rescue in 10 years from 1991 to 2000 showed that medical assistance was needed in only 930 cases (2%).¹⁰ The preventive and rescue actions of parents, bystanders, lifeguards, and prehospital rescue services significantly reduce the number of drowning deaths, but these groups do not consistently gather data on nonfatal drowning that can be included in a comprehensive database.

DROWNING IS A PROCESS

When a person in the water can no longer keep the airway clear, water that enters the mouth is voluntarily spit out or swallowed. Within a few seconds to minutes, the person can no longer clear the airways and water is aspirated, stimulating the cough reflex. Laryngo­spasm, another myth concerning drowning, is presumed to protect the airways but does not, as it is rare, occurring in less than 2% of cases.^11,12

If the person is not rescued, aspiration of water continues, and hypoxemia leads to loss of consciousness and apnea within seconds to a few minutes, followed by cardiac arrest. As a consequence, hypoxemic cardiac arrest generally occurs after a period of tachycardia followed by bradycardia and pulseless electrical activity, usually leading to asystole.^13,14

The entire drowning process, from water distress to cardiac arrest, usually takes a few minutes, but in rare situations, such as rapid hypothermia, it can go on for up to an hour.¹⁵ Most drowning patients have an otherwise healthy heart, and the apnea and hypoxemia precede the cardiac arrest by only a few seconds to minutes; thus, cardiac arrest is caused by the hypoxemic insult and not by ventricular dysrhythmias.^6,16

Drowning can be interrupted at any point between distress and death. If the person is rescued early, the clinical picture is determined by the reactivity of the airway and the amount of water that has been aspirated, but not by the type of water (salt or fresh).

Another myth is that drowning in salt water is different from drowning in fresh water. Both salt water and fresh water cause similar surfactant destruction and washout and disrupt the alveolar-capillary membrane. Disruption of the alveolar-capillary membrane increases its permeability and exacerbates shifting of fluid, plasma, and electrolytes into the alveoli.¹³ The clinical picture of the damage is one of regional or generalized pulmonary edema, which interferes with gas exchange in the lungs.^6,13,17

Animal studies by Modell et al showed that aspiration of just 2.2 mL of water per kilogram of body weight is sufficient to cause severe disturbances in oxygen exchange,¹⁷ reflected in a rise in arterial pH and a drop in partial pressure of oxygen. The situation must be similar in humans. In a 70-kg person, this is only about 154 mL of water—about two-thirds of a cup.

The combined effects of fluid in the lungs, the loss of surfactant, and the increase in capillary-alveolar permeability can result in decreased lung compliance, increased right-to-left shunting in the lungs, atelectasis, alveolitis, hypoxemia, and cerebral hypoxia.¹³

If the victim needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the possibility of neurologic damage is similar to that in other cardiac arrest situations, but exceptions exist. For example, in rare cases, hypothermia provides a protective mechanism that allows victims to survive prolonged submersion.^4,15

The duration of submersion is the best predictor of death.¹⁸ Underwater, people are not taking in oxygen, and cerebral hypoxia causes both morbidity and death. For this reason, reversing cerebral hypoxia with effective ventilation, oxygen, and chest compression is the priority of treatment.

“Near drowning,” “dry drowning,” “wet drowning,” “delayed drowning,” and “secondary drowning” are not medically accepted diagnoses,^3,4,19 and many organizations and lifesaving institutions around the world discourage the use of these terms.^19,20 Unfortunately, these terms still slip past the editors of medical journals and are thus perpetuated. The terms are most pervasive in the nonmedical media, where drowning seems to be synonymous with death.^3,19,21 We urge all authors and stakeholders to abandon these terms in favor of understanding and communicating drowning as a process that can vary in severity and have a fatal or nonfatal outcome.

Near-drowning

Historically, drowning meant death, while near-drowning meant the victim survived, at least initially (usually for at least 24 hours).

Before 2002, there were 13 different published definitions of near-drowning.^21,22 This variability has caused a great deal of confusion when trying to describe and monitor drowning.

A person can drown and survive, just as a person can have cardiac arrest and survive.^4,21 Just as there is no recognized condition of “near-cardiac arrest,” there is also no condition of near-drowning. Using near-drowning as a medical diagnosis hides the true burden of drowning and consequently amplifies difficulties in developing effective prevention, rescue, and treatment programs.

Dry drowning

Dry drowning has never been an accepted medical term, although it has been used to describe different parts of the drowning process. While many authors use it as a synonym for secondary drowning (described below), in the past it was usually used in cases in which no water was found in the lungs at autopsy in persons who were found dead in the water.^2–4,21 This occurred in about 10% to 15% of cases and was also called drowning “without water aspiration.”

Perhaps some victims suffer sudden cardiac death. It happens on land—why not in the water? Modell et al stated, “In the absence of the common finding of significant pulmonary edema in the victim’s respiratory system, to conclude his or her death was caused by ‘drowning without aspiration’ is unwise.”²³

Laryngospasm is another proposed explanation. It could play a role in the fewer than 2% of cases in which no other cause of death is found on clinical examination or autopsy,^11,12,19,23 but it does not occur in most cases of drowning, or it is brief and is terminated by the respiratory movements that allow the air in the lung to escape and water to be inhaled.

The problem with the term dry drowning is the harm caused by misdiagnosing cases of sudden death as drowning, when an alternative cause is present. Most importantly, the management is the same if small amounts of water are present or not; therefore, no clinical distinction is made between wet and dry drowning.

Secondary drowning

Secondary drowning, sometimes called delayed drowning, is another term that is not medically accepted. The historical use of this term reflects the reality that some patients may worsen due to pulmonary edema after aspirating small amounts of water.

Drowning starts with aspiration, and few or only mild symptoms may be present as soon as the person is removed from the water. Either the small amount of water in the lungs is absorbed and causes no complications or, rarely, the patient’s condition becomes progressively worse over the next few hours as the alveoli become inflamed and the alveolar-capillary membrane is disrupted. But people do not unexpectedly die of drowning days or weeks later with no preceding symptoms. The lungs and heart do not “fill up with water,” and water does not need to be pumped out of the lungs.

There has never been a case published in the medical literature of a patient who underwent clinical evaluation, was initially without symptoms, and later deteriorated and died more than 8 hours after the incident.^6,10,21 People who have drowned and have minimal symptoms get better (usually) or worse (rarely) within 4 to 8 hours. In a study of more than 41,000 lifeguard rescues, only 0.5% of symptomatic patients died.⁶

Drowning secondary to injury or sudden illness

Any injury, trauma, or sudden illness that can cause loss of consciousness or mental or physical weakness can lead to drowning. Physicians need to recognize these situations to treat them appropriately. Drowning that is secondary to other primary insults can be classified as²⁴:

• Drowning caused by injury or trauma (eg, a surfing, boating, or a hang-gliding accident)
• Drowning caused by a sudden illness such as cardiac disease (eg, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, prolonged QT syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) or neurologic disease (eg, epilepsy, stroke)
• Diving disease (eg, decompression sickness, pulmonary overpressurization syndrome, compression barotrauma, narcosis [“rapture of the deep”], shallow water blackout, immersion pulmonary edema).

PREVENTION IS BEST

Drowning is a leading and preventable cause of death worldwide and for people of all ages. The danger is real, not esoteric or rare, and healthcare providers should use any opportunity to discuss with patients, parents, and the media the most important tool for treating drowning: primary prevention.

For example, small children should be continuously and uninterruptedly supervised within arm’s reach while in the water, even if a lifeguard is present. Other preventive measures are lifejackets, fences completely enclosing pools or ponds, and swimming and water safety lessons. Drowning often occurs in a deceptively pleasant environment that may not seem dangerous.

When preventive measures fail, responders (usually a health professional is involved) need to be able to perform the necessary steps to interrupt the drowning process.

The first challenge is to recognize when someone in the water is at risk of drowning and needs to be rescued.²⁵ Early self-rescue or rescue by others may stop the drowning process and prevent most cases of initial and subsequent water aspiration, respiratory distress, and medical complications.

DON’T BECOME A VICTIM

Rescuers must take care not to become victims themselves. Panicked swimmers can thrash about and injure the rescuer or clutch at anything they encounter, dragging the rescuer under. And the rescuer can succumb to the same hazards that got the victim into trouble, such as strong currents, deep water, or underwater hazards.

Certified lifeguards are trained to get victims out of the water safely. The American Red Cross slogan “Reach or throw, don’t go” means “Reach out with a pole or other object or throw something that floats; don’t get in the water yourself.”

WHAT TO TELL THE PUBLIC

While some journalists acknowledge that the terms dry drowning and secondary drowning are medically discredited, they still use them in their reports. The novelty of this story—and its appeal to media outlets—is precisely the unfamiliarity of these terms to the general public and the perceived mysterious, looming threat.

We often hear that these terms are more familiar to the public, which is likely true. More concerning, some physicians continue to use them (and older definitions of drowning that equate it with death) in media interviews, clinical care, and publications. The paradox is that we, the medical community, invented these terms, not patients or the media.

As clinicians and researchers, we should drive popular culture definitions, not the other way around. Rather than dismiss these terms as “semantics” or “technicalities,” we should take the opportunity to highlight the dangers of drowning and the importance of prevention, and to promote simpler language that is easier for us and our patients to understand.^19,21

Healthcare providers should understand and share modern drowning science and best practices, which will reduce fear, improve resource utilization, and prevent potentially deadly consequences due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of incorrect terminology.

WHEN PATIENTS SHOULD SEEK CARE

Anyone who experiences cough, breathless­ness, or other worrisome symptoms such as abnormal mentation within 8 hours of a drowning incident (using the modern definition above) should seek medical advice immediately.

We tell people to seek care if symptoms seem any worse than the experience of a drink “going down the wrong pipe” at the dinner table.²¹ But symptoms can be minimal. Careful attention should be given to mild symptoms that get progressively worse during that time. These cases can rarely progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Table 1 explores who needs further medical help after being rescued from the water.²⁶

In most of these cases, it is most appropriate to call an ambulance, but care may involve seeing a doctor depending on the severity of the symptoms.^6,21 Usually, drowning patients are observed for 4 to 8 hours in an emergency department and are discharged if normal. Symptoms that are more significant include persistent cough, foam at the mouth or nose, confusion, or abnormal behavior, and these require further medical evaluation.

Patients should also seek medical care even if they are 100% normal upon exiting the water but develop worrisome symptoms more than 8 hours later, and providers should consider diagnoses other than primary drowning. Spontaneous pneumothorax, chemical pneumonitis, bacterial or viral pneumonia, head injury, asthma, chest trauma, and acute respiratory distress syndrome have been mislabeled as delayed, dry, or secondary drowning.^3,4,19,21

In June 2017, a 4-year-old boy died 1 week after being knocked over and briefly submerged while playing in knee-deep water. This story was widely reported as a case of a rare occurrence called “dry” or “secondary” drowning, depending on the source.¹ The media accounts went viral, spreading fear in parents and others learning about these alleged conditions from the news and social media.

Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported every year, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medically recognized diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not).

Drowning is one of the most common causes of death in children, and so we ought to make sure that the information we share about it is accurate, as it is vital to effective prevention, rescue, and treatment.

Unfortunately, medical providers, medical journals, and the mass media continue to disseminate misinformation on drowning.² These reports often prevail over updated information and hinder accurate understanding of the drowning problem and its solutions.

Every death is tragic, especially the death of a child, and our heartfelt sympathies go out to the family in this alleged drowning case, as well as to all families suffering the loss of a loved one to drowning. However, in the 2017 case, the cause of death was found on autopsy to be myocarditis not related in any way to drowning. As often happens in such situations, this clarification did not receive any media attention, despite the wide reporting and penetration of the original, erroneous story.

We hope our review will reduce misunderstanding among the public and healthcare providers, contribute to improved data collection, and help to promote interventions aimed at prevention, rescue, and mitigation of drowning incidents.

WHAT IS DROWNING?

A consensus committee of the World Health Organization defined drowning as “the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid.”³ The process begins when the victim’s airway goes below the surface of the liquid (submersion) or when water splashes over the face (immersion). If the victim is rescued at any time, the process is interrupted, and this is termed a nonfatal drowning. If the victim dies at any time, this is a fatal drowning. Any water-distress incident without evidence of respiratory impairment (ie, without aspiration) should be considered a water rescue and not a drowning.

Rarely do minimally symptomatic cases progress to death, just as most cases of chest pain do not progress to cardiac arrest.⁴ Nonetheless, rescued drowning victims can deteriorate, which is why we encourage people to seek medical care immediately upon warning signs, as we do with chest pain. For drowning, such warning signs are any water distress followed by difficulty breathing, excessive coughing, foam in the mouth, or abnormal behavior.

A SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE

Drowning is a serious and neglected public health issue, claiming the lives of 372,000 people a year worldwide.⁵ It is a leading cause of death in children ages 1 to 14. The toll continues largely unabated, and in low- and middle-income nations it does not attract the levels of funding that go to other forms of injury prevention, such as road safety.

Nonfatal drowning—with symptoms ranging from mild cough to severe pulmonary edema, and complications ranging from none to severe neurologic impairment—is far more common than fatal drowning.⁶ For every fatal drowning, there are at least 5 nonfatal drowning incidents in which medical care is needed, and 200 rescues are performed.^7–10

In the United States, drowning accounts for almost 13,000 emergency department visits per year and about 3,500 deaths.^7,8

In Brazil, with two-thirds the population of the United States, drowning accounts for far fewer hospital visits but about twice as many deaths. In Rio de Janeiro, where a highly effective and specialized prehospital service is provided at 3 drowning resuscitation centers staffed by medical doctors, an analysis of the 46,060 cases of rescue in 10 years from 1991 to 2000 showed that medical assistance was needed in only 930 cases (2%).¹⁰ The preventive and rescue actions of parents, bystanders, lifeguards, and prehospital rescue services significantly reduce the number of drowning deaths, but these groups do not consistently gather data on nonfatal drowning that can be included in a comprehensive database.

DROWNING IS A PROCESS

When a person in the water can no longer keep the airway clear, water that enters the mouth is voluntarily spit out or swallowed. Within a few seconds to minutes, the person can no longer clear the airways and water is aspirated, stimulating the cough reflex. Laryngo­spasm, another myth concerning drowning, is presumed to protect the airways but does not, as it is rare, occurring in less than 2% of cases.^11,12

If the person is not rescued, aspiration of water continues, and hypoxemia leads to loss of consciousness and apnea within seconds to a few minutes, followed by cardiac arrest. As a consequence, hypoxemic cardiac arrest generally occurs after a period of tachycardia followed by bradycardia and pulseless electrical activity, usually leading to asystole.^13,14

The entire drowning process, from water distress to cardiac arrest, usually takes a few minutes, but in rare situations, such as rapid hypothermia, it can go on for up to an hour.¹⁵ Most drowning patients have an otherwise healthy heart, and the apnea and hypoxemia precede the cardiac arrest by only a few seconds to minutes; thus, cardiac arrest is caused by the hypoxemic insult and not by ventricular dysrhythmias.^6,16

Drowning can be interrupted at any point between distress and death. If the person is rescued early, the clinical picture is determined by the reactivity of the airway and the amount of water that has been aspirated, but not by the type of water (salt or fresh).

Another myth is that drowning in salt water is different from drowning in fresh water. Both salt water and fresh water cause similar surfactant destruction and washout and disrupt the alveolar-capillary membrane. Disruption of the alveolar-capillary membrane increases its permeability and exacerbates shifting of fluid, plasma, and electrolytes into the alveoli.¹³ The clinical picture of the damage is one of regional or generalized pulmonary edema, which interferes with gas exchange in the lungs.^6,13,17

Animal studies by Modell et al showed that aspiration of just 2.2 mL of water per kilogram of body weight is sufficient to cause severe disturbances in oxygen exchange,¹⁷ reflected in a rise in arterial pH and a drop in partial pressure of oxygen. The situation must be similar in humans. In a 70-kg person, this is only about 154 mL of water—about two-thirds of a cup.

The combined effects of fluid in the lungs, the loss of surfactant, and the increase in capillary-alveolar permeability can result in decreased lung compliance, increased right-to-left shunting in the lungs, atelectasis, alveolitis, hypoxemia, and cerebral hypoxia.¹³

If the victim needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the possibility of neurologic damage is similar to that in other cardiac arrest situations, but exceptions exist. For example, in rare cases, hypothermia provides a protective mechanism that allows victims to survive prolonged submersion.^4,15

The duration of submersion is the best predictor of death.¹⁸ Underwater, people are not taking in oxygen, and cerebral hypoxia causes both morbidity and death. For this reason, reversing cerebral hypoxia with effective ventilation, oxygen, and chest compression is the priority of treatment.

“Near drowning,” “dry drowning,” “wet drowning,” “delayed drowning,” and “secondary drowning” are not medically accepted diagnoses,^3,4,19 and many organizations and lifesaving institutions around the world discourage the use of these terms.^19,20 Unfortunately, these terms still slip past the editors of medical journals and are thus perpetuated. The terms are most pervasive in the nonmedical media, where drowning seems to be synonymous with death.^3,19,21 We urge all authors and stakeholders to abandon these terms in favor of understanding and communicating drowning as a process that can vary in severity and have a fatal or nonfatal outcome.

Near-drowning

Historically, drowning meant death, while near-drowning meant the victim survived, at least initially (usually for at least 24 hours).

Before 2002, there were 13 different published definitions of near-drowning.^21,22 This variability has caused a great deal of confusion when trying to describe and monitor drowning.

A person can drown and survive, just as a person can have cardiac arrest and survive.^4,21 Just as there is no recognized condition of “near-cardiac arrest,” there is also no condition of near-drowning. Using near-drowning as a medical diagnosis hides the true burden of drowning and consequently amplifies difficulties in developing effective prevention, rescue, and treatment programs.

Dry drowning

Dry drowning has never been an accepted medical term, although it has been used to describe different parts of the drowning process. While many authors use it as a synonym for secondary drowning (described below), in the past it was usually used in cases in which no water was found in the lungs at autopsy in persons who were found dead in the water.^2–4,21 This occurred in about 10% to 15% of cases and was also called drowning “without water aspiration.”

Perhaps some victims suffer sudden cardiac death. It happens on land—why not in the water? Modell et al stated, “In the absence of the common finding of significant pulmonary edema in the victim’s respiratory system, to conclude his or her death was caused by ‘drowning without aspiration’ is unwise.”²³

Laryngospasm is another proposed explanation. It could play a role in the fewer than 2% of cases in which no other cause of death is found on clinical examination or autopsy,^11,12,19,23 but it does not occur in most cases of drowning, or it is brief and is terminated by the respiratory movements that allow the air in the lung to escape and water to be inhaled.

The problem with the term dry drowning is the harm caused by misdiagnosing cases of sudden death as drowning, when an alternative cause is present. Most importantly, the management is the same if small amounts of water are present or not; therefore, no clinical distinction is made between wet and dry drowning.

Secondary drowning

Secondary drowning, sometimes called delayed drowning, is another term that is not medically accepted. The historical use of this term reflects the reality that some patients may worsen due to pulmonary edema after aspirating small amounts of water.

Drowning starts with aspiration, and few or only mild symptoms may be present as soon as the person is removed from the water. Either the small amount of water in the lungs is absorbed and causes no complications or, rarely, the patient’s condition becomes progressively worse over the next few hours as the alveoli become inflamed and the alveolar-capillary membrane is disrupted. But people do not unexpectedly die of drowning days or weeks later with no preceding symptoms. The lungs and heart do not “fill up with water,” and water does not need to be pumped out of the lungs.

There has never been a case published in the medical literature of a patient who underwent clinical evaluation, was initially without symptoms, and later deteriorated and died more than 8 hours after the incident.^6,10,21 People who have drowned and have minimal symptoms get better (usually) or worse (rarely) within 4 to 8 hours. In a study of more than 41,000 lifeguard rescues, only 0.5% of symptomatic patients died.⁶

Drowning secondary to injury or sudden illness

Any injury, trauma, or sudden illness that can cause loss of consciousness or mental or physical weakness can lead to drowning. Physicians need to recognize these situations to treat them appropriately. Drowning that is secondary to other primary insults can be classified as²⁴:

• Drowning caused by injury or trauma (eg, a surfing, boating, or a hang-gliding accident)
• Drowning caused by a sudden illness such as cardiac disease (eg, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, prolonged QT syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) or neurologic disease (eg, epilepsy, stroke)
• Diving disease (eg, decompression sickness, pulmonary overpressurization syndrome, compression barotrauma, narcosis [“rapture of the deep”], shallow water blackout, immersion pulmonary edema).

PREVENTION IS BEST

Drowning is a leading and preventable cause of death worldwide and for people of all ages. The danger is real, not esoteric or rare, and healthcare providers should use any opportunity to discuss with patients, parents, and the media the most important tool for treating drowning: primary prevention.

For example, small children should be continuously and uninterruptedly supervised within arm’s reach while in the water, even if a lifeguard is present. Other preventive measures are lifejackets, fences completely enclosing pools or ponds, and swimming and water safety lessons. Drowning often occurs in a deceptively pleasant environment that may not seem dangerous.

When preventive measures fail, responders (usually a health professional is involved) need to be able to perform the necessary steps to interrupt the drowning process.

The first challenge is to recognize when someone in the water is at risk of drowning and needs to be rescued.²⁵ Early self-rescue or rescue by others may stop the drowning process and prevent most cases of initial and subsequent water aspiration, respiratory distress, and medical complications.

DON’T BECOME A VICTIM

Rescuers must take care not to become victims themselves. Panicked swimmers can thrash about and injure the rescuer or clutch at anything they encounter, dragging the rescuer under. And the rescuer can succumb to the same hazards that got the victim into trouble, such as strong currents, deep water, or underwater hazards.

Certified lifeguards are trained to get victims out of the water safely. The American Red Cross slogan “Reach or throw, don’t go” means “Reach out with a pole or other object or throw something that floats; don’t get in the water yourself.”

WHAT TO TELL THE PUBLIC

While some journalists acknowledge that the terms dry drowning and secondary drowning are medically discredited, they still use them in their reports. The novelty of this story—and its appeal to media outlets—is precisely the unfamiliarity of these terms to the general public and the perceived mysterious, looming threat.

We often hear that these terms are more familiar to the public, which is likely true. More concerning, some physicians continue to use them (and older definitions of drowning that equate it with death) in media interviews, clinical care, and publications. The paradox is that we, the medical community, invented these terms, not patients or the media.

As clinicians and researchers, we should drive popular culture definitions, not the other way around. Rather than dismiss these terms as “semantics” or “technicalities,” we should take the opportunity to highlight the dangers of drowning and the importance of prevention, and to promote simpler language that is easier for us and our patients to understand.^19,21

Healthcare providers should understand and share modern drowning science and best practices, which will reduce fear, improve resource utilization, and prevent potentially deadly consequences due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of incorrect terminology.

WHEN PATIENTS SHOULD SEEK CARE

Anyone who experiences cough, breathless­ness, or other worrisome symptoms such as abnormal mentation within 8 hours of a drowning incident (using the modern definition above) should seek medical advice immediately.

We tell people to seek care if symptoms seem any worse than the experience of a drink “going down the wrong pipe” at the dinner table.²¹ But symptoms can be minimal. Careful attention should be given to mild symptoms that get progressively worse during that time. These cases can rarely progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Table 1 explores who needs further medical help after being rescued from the water.²⁶

In most of these cases, it is most appropriate to call an ambulance, but care may involve seeing a doctor depending on the severity of the symptoms.^6,21 Usually, drowning patients are observed for 4 to 8 hours in an emergency department and are discharged if normal. Symptoms that are more significant include persistent cough, foam at the mouth or nose, confusion, or abnormal behavior, and these require further medical evaluation.

Patients should also seek medical care even if they are 100% normal upon exiting the water but develop worrisome symptoms more than 8 hours later, and providers should consider diagnoses other than primary drowning. Spontaneous pneumothorax, chemical pneumonitis, bacterial or viral pneumonia, head injury, asthma, chest trauma, and acute respiratory distress syndrome have been mislabeled as delayed, dry, or secondary drowning.^3,4,19,21

A 55-year-old man with no significant medical history presented to the emergency department with left-sided flank pain that had begun 3 days earlier. He described the pain as continuous, sharp, and aggravated by movement. He worked in construction, and before the pain started he had moved 8 sheets of drywall and lifted 5-gallon buckets of spackling compound. He denied any associated chest pain, palpitations, dyspnea, cough, or lightheadedness. His family history included sudden cardiac death in 2 second-degree relatives.

On arrival in the emergency department, his vital signs were normal, as were the rest of the findings on physical examination except for reproducible point tenderness below the left scapula.

Laboratory workup revealed normal blood cell counts, liver enzymes, and kidney function. His initial troponin test was negative.

The patient was referred to an electrophysiologist for further evaluation, but he returned to his home country (Haiti) after discharge and was lost to follow-up.

WOLFF-PARKINSON-WHITE PATTERN VS SYNDROME

WPW syndrome is a disorder of the conduction system leading to preexcitation of the ventricles by an accessory pathway between the atria and ventricles. It is characterized by preexcitation manifested on electrocardiography and by symptomatic arrhythmias.

In contrast, the WPW pattern is defined only by preexcitation findings on electrocardiography without symptomatic arrhythmias. Patients with WPW syndrome can present with palpitation, dizziness, and syncope resulting from underlying arrhythmia.¹ This is not seen in patients with the WPW pattern.

A short PR interval with or without delta waves can also be seen in the absence of an accessory pathway, eg, in hypoplastic left heart syndrome, atrioventricular canal defect, and Ebstein anomaly. These conditions are termed pseudopreexcitation syndrome.²

Our patient presented with severe musculoskeletal pain that precipitated the electrocardiographic changes of the WPW pattern and resolved with adequate pain control. The WPW pattern can be unmasked under different scenarios, including anesthesia, sympathomimetic drugs, and postoperatively.^3–5

Catecholamine challenge has been used to unmask high-risk features in WPW syndrome.³ Our patient may have had a transient spike in catecholamine levels because of severe musculoskeletal pain, leading to unmasking of accessory pathways and resulting in the WPW pattern on electrocardiography.

Most patients with the WPW pattern experience no symptoms, but a small percentage develop arrhythmias.

In rare cases, sudden cardiac death can be the presenting feature of WPW syndrome. The estimated risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with the WPW pattern is 1.25 per 1,000 person-years; ventricular fibrillation is the underlying mechanism.⁶ As our patient had a family history of sudden cardiac death, he was considered at high risk and was therefore referred to an electrophysiologist.

A 55-year-old man with no significant medical history presented to the emergency department with left-sided flank pain that had begun 3 days earlier. He described the pain as continuous, sharp, and aggravated by movement. He worked in construction, and before the pain started he had moved 8 sheets of drywall and lifted 5-gallon buckets of spackling compound. He denied any associated chest pain, palpitations, dyspnea, cough, or lightheadedness. His family history included sudden cardiac death in 2 second-degree relatives.

On arrival in the emergency department, his vital signs were normal, as were the rest of the findings on physical examination except for reproducible point tenderness below the left scapula.

Laboratory workup revealed normal blood cell counts, liver enzymes, and kidney function. His initial troponin test was negative.

The patient was referred to an electrophysiologist for further evaluation, but he returned to his home country (Haiti) after discharge and was lost to follow-up.

WOLFF-PARKINSON-WHITE PATTERN VS SYNDROME

WPW syndrome is a disorder of the conduction system leading to preexcitation of the ventricles by an accessory pathway between the atria and ventricles. It is characterized by preexcitation manifested on electrocardiography and by symptomatic arrhythmias.

In contrast, the WPW pattern is defined only by preexcitation findings on electrocardiography without symptomatic arrhythmias. Patients with WPW syndrome can present with palpitation, dizziness, and syncope resulting from underlying arrhythmia.¹ This is not seen in patients with the WPW pattern.

A short PR interval with or without delta waves can also be seen in the absence of an accessory pathway, eg, in hypoplastic left heart syndrome, atrioventricular canal defect, and Ebstein anomaly. These conditions are termed pseudopreexcitation syndrome.²

Our patient presented with severe musculoskeletal pain that precipitated the electrocardiographic changes of the WPW pattern and resolved with adequate pain control. The WPW pattern can be unmasked under different scenarios, including anesthesia, sympathomimetic drugs, and postoperatively.^3–5

Catecholamine challenge has been used to unmask high-risk features in WPW syndrome.³ Our patient may have had a transient spike in catecholamine levels because of severe musculoskeletal pain, leading to unmasking of accessory pathways and resulting in the WPW pattern on electrocardiography.

Most patients with the WPW pattern experience no symptoms, but a small percentage develop arrhythmias.

In rare cases, sudden cardiac death can be the presenting feature of WPW syndrome. The estimated risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with the WPW pattern is 1.25 per 1,000 person-years; ventricular fibrillation is the underlying mechanism.⁶ As our patient had a family history of sudden cardiac death, he was considered at high risk and was therefore referred to an electrophysiologist.

A 55-year-old man with no significant medical history presented to the emergency department with left-sided flank pain that had begun 3 days earlier. He described the pain as continuous, sharp, and aggravated by movement. He worked in construction, and before the pain started he had moved 8 sheets of drywall and lifted 5-gallon buckets of spackling compound. He denied any associated chest pain, palpitations, dyspnea, cough, or lightheadedness. His family history included sudden cardiac death in 2 second-degree relatives.

On arrival in the emergency department, his vital signs were normal, as were the rest of the findings on physical examination except for reproducible point tenderness below the left scapula.

Laboratory workup revealed normal blood cell counts, liver enzymes, and kidney function. His initial troponin test was negative.

The patient was referred to an electrophysiologist for further evaluation, but he returned to his home country (Haiti) after discharge and was lost to follow-up.

WOLFF-PARKINSON-WHITE PATTERN VS SYNDROME

WPW syndrome is a disorder of the conduction system leading to preexcitation of the ventricles by an accessory pathway between the atria and ventricles. It is characterized by preexcitation manifested on electrocardiography and by symptomatic arrhythmias.

In contrast, the WPW pattern is defined only by preexcitation findings on electrocardiography without symptomatic arrhythmias. Patients with WPW syndrome can present with palpitation, dizziness, and syncope resulting from underlying arrhythmia.¹ This is not seen in patients with the WPW pattern.

A short PR interval with or without delta waves can also be seen in the absence of an accessory pathway, eg, in hypoplastic left heart syndrome, atrioventricular canal defect, and Ebstein anomaly. These conditions are termed pseudopreexcitation syndrome.²

Our patient presented with severe musculoskeletal pain that precipitated the electrocardiographic changes of the WPW pattern and resolved with adequate pain control. The WPW pattern can be unmasked under different scenarios, including anesthesia, sympathomimetic drugs, and postoperatively.^3–5

Catecholamine challenge has been used to unmask high-risk features in WPW syndrome.³ Our patient may have had a transient spike in catecholamine levels because of severe musculoskeletal pain, leading to unmasking of accessory pathways and resulting in the WPW pattern on electrocardiography.

Most patients with the WPW pattern experience no symptoms, but a small percentage develop arrhythmias.

In rare cases, sudden cardiac death can be the presenting feature of WPW syndrome. The estimated risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with the WPW pattern is 1.25 per 1,000 person-years; ventricular fibrillation is the underlying mechanism.⁶ As our patient had a family history of sudden cardiac death, he was considered at high risk and was therefore referred to an electrophysiologist.

A 55-year-old man with a 20-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus was admitted to the hospital after presenting to the emergency department with an acute change in mental status. Three days earlier, he had begun to feel abdominal discomfort and dizziness, which gradually worsened.

On presentation, his Glasgow Coma Scale score was 13 out of 15 (eye-opening response 3 of 4, verbal response 4 of 5, motor response 6 of 6), his blood pressure was 221/114 mm Hg, and other vital signs were normal. Physical examination including a neurologic examination was normal. No gait abnormality or ataxia was noted.

When asked about current medications, he said that 2 years earlier he had missed an appointment with his primary care physician and so had never obtained refills of his diabetes medications.

Results of laboratory testing were as follows:

• Blood glucose 1,011 mg/dL (reference range 65–110)
• Hemoglobin A_1c 17.8% (4%–5.6%)
• Sodium 126 mmol/L (135–145)
• Sodium corrected for serum glucose 141 mmol/L
• Potassium 3.2 mmol/L (3.5–5.0)
• Blood urea nitrogen 43.8 mg/dL (8–21)
• Calculated serum osmolality 324 mosm/kg (275–295).

Blood gas analysis showed no acidosis. Tests for urinary and serum ketones were negative. Computed tomography (CT) of the head without contrast was normal.

Based on the results of the evaluation, the patient’s condition was diagnosed as a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, presumably from dehydration and noncompliance with diabetes medications. His altered mental status was also attributed to this diagnosis. He was started on aggressive hydration and insulin infusion to correct the blood glucose level. Repeat laboratory testing 7 hours after admission revealed a blood glucose of 49 mg/dL, sodium 148 mmol/L, blood urea nitrogen 43 mg/dL, and calculated serum osmolality 290 mosm/kg.

The insulin infusion was suspended, and glucose infusion was started. With this treatment, his blood glucose level stabilized, but his Glasgow Coma Scale score was unchanged from the time of presentation. A neurologic examination at this time showed bilateral dysmetria. Cranial nerves were normal. Motor examination showed normal tone with a Medical Research Council score of 5 of 5 in all extremities. Sensory examination revealed a glove-and-stocking pattern of loss of vibratory sensation. Tendon reflexes were normal except for diminished bilateral knee-jerk and ankle-jerk responses.

OSMOTIC DEMYELINATION SYNDROME

Central pontine myelinolysis is a pivotal manifestation of the syndrome and is characterized by progressive lethargy, quadriparesis, dysarthria, ophthalmoplegia, dysphasia, ataxia, and reflex changes. Clinical symptoms of extrapontine myelinolysis are variable.⁴

Although CT may underestimate osmotic demyelination syndrome, the typical radiologic findings on brain MRI are hyperintense lesions in the central pons or associated extrapontine structures on T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences.⁴

A precise definition of hyperosmolar hyperglycemia does not exist. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care suggested the following features: a measured osmolality of 320 mosm/kg or higher, a blood glucose level of 541 mg/dL or higher, severe dehydration, and feeling unwell.⁵

Our patient’s clinical course and high hemoglobin A_1c suggested prolonged hyperglycemia and high serum osmolality before his admission. After his admission, aggressive hydration and insulin therapy corrected the hyperglycemia and serum osmolality too rapidly for his brain cells to adjust to the change. It was reasonable to suspect a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state as one of the main causes of his mental status change and ataxia. This, along with lack of improvement in his impaired metal status and new-onset ataxia despite treatment, led to suspicion of osmotic demyelination syndrome. His diminished bilateral knee-jerk and ankle-jerk responses more likely represented diabetic neuropathy rather than osmotic demyelination syndrome.

Osmotic demyelination syndrome has seldom been reported as a complication of hyperosmolar hyperglycemia.^6–13 And extrapontine myelinolysis with hyperosmolar hyperglycemia is extremely rare, with only 2 reports to date to the best of our knowledge.^6,10

There is no specific treatment for osmotic demyelination syndrome except for supportive care and treatment of coexisting conditions. Once an osmotic derangement is identified, we recommend correcting chronically elevated serum glucose values gradually to avoid overtreatment, just as we would do with elevated serum sodium levels. Changes in neurologic findings, serum blood glucose level, and serum osmolality should be followed closely. A review showed that a favorable recovery from osmotic demyelination syndrome is possible even with severe neurologic deficits.⁴

TAKE-AWAY POINTS

• Osmotic demyelination syndrome is a rare but severe complication of a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.
• Physicians should be aware not only of changes in serum sodium, but also of changes in serum osmolality and serum glucose.
• When a new-onset neurologic deficit is found during treatment of a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, suspect osmotic demyelination syndrome, monitor changes in serum osmolality, and consider brain MRI.

A 55-year-old man with a 20-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus was admitted to the hospital after presenting to the emergency department with an acute change in mental status. Three days earlier, he had begun to feel abdominal discomfort and dizziness, which gradually worsened.

On presentation, his Glasgow Coma Scale score was 13 out of 15 (eye-opening response 3 of 4, verbal response 4 of 5, motor response 6 of 6), his blood pressure was 221/114 mm Hg, and other vital signs were normal. Physical examination including a neurologic examination was normal. No gait abnormality or ataxia was noted.

When asked about current medications, he said that 2 years earlier he had missed an appointment with his primary care physician and so had never obtained refills of his diabetes medications.

Results of laboratory testing were as follows:

• Blood glucose 1,011 mg/dL (reference range 65–110)
• Hemoglobin A_1c 17.8% (4%–5.6%)
• Sodium 126 mmol/L (135–145)
• Sodium corrected for serum glucose 141 mmol/L
• Potassium 3.2 mmol/L (3.5–5.0)
• Blood urea nitrogen 43.8 mg/dL (8–21)
• Calculated serum osmolality 324 mosm/kg (275–295).

Blood gas analysis showed no acidosis. Tests for urinary and serum ketones were negative. Computed tomography (CT) of the head without contrast was normal.

Based on the results of the evaluation, the patient’s condition was diagnosed as a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, presumably from dehydration and noncompliance with diabetes medications. His altered mental status was also attributed to this diagnosis. He was started on aggressive hydration and insulin infusion to correct the blood glucose level. Repeat laboratory testing 7 hours after admission revealed a blood glucose of 49 mg/dL, sodium 148 mmol/L, blood urea nitrogen 43 mg/dL, and calculated serum osmolality 290 mosm/kg.

The insulin infusion was suspended, and glucose infusion was started. With this treatment, his blood glucose level stabilized, but his Glasgow Coma Scale score was unchanged from the time of presentation. A neurologic examination at this time showed bilateral dysmetria. Cranial nerves were normal. Motor examination showed normal tone with a Medical Research Council score of 5 of 5 in all extremities. Sensory examination revealed a glove-and-stocking pattern of loss of vibratory sensation. Tendon reflexes were normal except for diminished bilateral knee-jerk and ankle-jerk responses.

OSMOTIC DEMYELINATION SYNDROME

Central pontine myelinolysis is a pivotal manifestation of the syndrome and is characterized by progressive lethargy, quadriparesis, dysarthria, ophthalmoplegia, dysphasia, ataxia, and reflex changes. Clinical symptoms of extrapontine myelinolysis are variable.⁴

Although CT may underestimate osmotic demyelination syndrome, the typical radiologic findings on brain MRI are hyperintense lesions in the central pons or associated extrapontine structures on T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences.⁴

A precise definition of hyperosmolar hyperglycemia does not exist. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care suggested the following features: a measured osmolality of 320 mosm/kg or higher, a blood glucose level of 541 mg/dL or higher, severe dehydration, and feeling unwell.⁵

Our patient’s clinical course and high hemoglobin A_1c suggested prolonged hyperglycemia and high serum osmolality before his admission. After his admission, aggressive hydration and insulin therapy corrected the hyperglycemia and serum osmolality too rapidly for his brain cells to adjust to the change. It was reasonable to suspect a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state as one of the main causes of his mental status change and ataxia. This, along with lack of improvement in his impaired metal status and new-onset ataxia despite treatment, led to suspicion of osmotic demyelination syndrome. His diminished bilateral knee-jerk and ankle-jerk responses more likely represented diabetic neuropathy rather than osmotic demyelination syndrome.

Osmotic demyelination syndrome has seldom been reported as a complication of hyperosmolar hyperglycemia.^6–13 And extrapontine myelinolysis with hyperosmolar hyperglycemia is extremely rare, with only 2 reports to date to the best of our knowledge.^6,10

There is no specific treatment for osmotic demyelination syndrome except for supportive care and treatment of coexisting conditions. Once an osmotic derangement is identified, we recommend correcting chronically elevated serum glucose values gradually to avoid overtreatment, just as we would do with elevated serum sodium levels. Changes in neurologic findings, serum blood glucose level, and serum osmolality should be followed closely. A review showed that a favorable recovery from osmotic demyelination syndrome is possible even with severe neurologic deficits.⁴

TAKE-AWAY POINTS

• Osmotic demyelination syndrome is a rare but severe complication of a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.
• Physicians should be aware not only of changes in serum sodium, but also of changes in serum osmolality and serum glucose.
• When a new-onset neurologic deficit is found during treatment of a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, suspect osmotic demyelination syndrome, monitor changes in serum osmolality, and consider brain MRI.

A 55-year-old man with a 20-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus was admitted to the hospital after presenting to the emergency department with an acute change in mental status. Three days earlier, he had begun to feel abdominal discomfort and dizziness, which gradually worsened.

On presentation, his Glasgow Coma Scale score was 13 out of 15 (eye-opening response 3 of 4, verbal response 4 of 5, motor response 6 of 6), his blood pressure was 221/114 mm Hg, and other vital signs were normal. Physical examination including a neurologic examination was normal. No gait abnormality or ataxia was noted.

When asked about current medications, he said that 2 years earlier he had missed an appointment with his primary care physician and so had never obtained refills of his diabetes medications.

Results of laboratory testing were as follows:

• Blood glucose 1,011 mg/dL (reference range 65–110)
• Hemoglobin A_1c 17.8% (4%–5.6%)
• Sodium 126 mmol/L (135–145)
• Sodium corrected for serum glucose 141 mmol/L
• Potassium 3.2 mmol/L (3.5–5.0)
• Blood urea nitrogen 43.8 mg/dL (8–21)
• Calculated serum osmolality 324 mosm/kg (275–295).

Blood gas analysis showed no acidosis. Tests for urinary and serum ketones were negative. Computed tomography (CT) of the head without contrast was normal.

Based on the results of the evaluation, the patient’s condition was diagnosed as a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, presumably from dehydration and noncompliance with diabetes medications. His altered mental status was also attributed to this diagnosis. He was started on aggressive hydration and insulin infusion to correct the blood glucose level. Repeat laboratory testing 7 hours after admission revealed a blood glucose of 49 mg/dL, sodium 148 mmol/L, blood urea nitrogen 43 mg/dL, and calculated serum osmolality 290 mosm/kg.

The insulin infusion was suspended, and glucose infusion was started. With this treatment, his blood glucose level stabilized, but his Glasgow Coma Scale score was unchanged from the time of presentation. A neurologic examination at this time showed bilateral dysmetria. Cranial nerves were normal. Motor examination showed normal tone with a Medical Research Council score of 5 of 5 in all extremities. Sensory examination revealed a glove-and-stocking pattern of loss of vibratory sensation. Tendon reflexes were normal except for diminished bilateral knee-jerk and ankle-jerk responses.

OSMOTIC DEMYELINATION SYNDROME

Central pontine myelinolysis is a pivotal manifestation of the syndrome and is characterized by progressive lethargy, quadriparesis, dysarthria, ophthalmoplegia, dysphasia, ataxia, and reflex changes. Clinical symptoms of extrapontine myelinolysis are variable.⁴

Although CT may underestimate osmotic demyelination syndrome, the typical radiologic findings on brain MRI are hyperintense lesions in the central pons or associated extrapontine structures on T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences.⁴

A precise definition of hyperosmolar hyperglycemia does not exist. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care suggested the following features: a measured osmolality of 320 mosm/kg or higher, a blood glucose level of 541 mg/dL or higher, severe dehydration, and feeling unwell.⁵

Our patient’s clinical course and high hemoglobin A_1c suggested prolonged hyperglycemia and high serum osmolality before his admission. After his admission, aggressive hydration and insulin therapy corrected the hyperglycemia and serum osmolality too rapidly for his brain cells to adjust to the change. It was reasonable to suspect a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state as one of the main causes of his mental status change and ataxia. This, along with lack of improvement in his impaired metal status and new-onset ataxia despite treatment, led to suspicion of osmotic demyelination syndrome. His diminished bilateral knee-jerk and ankle-jerk responses more likely represented diabetic neuropathy rather than osmotic demyelination syndrome.

Osmotic demyelination syndrome has seldom been reported as a complication of hyperosmolar hyperglycemia.^6–13 And extrapontine myelinolysis with hyperosmolar hyperglycemia is extremely rare, with only 2 reports to date to the best of our knowledge.^6,10

There is no specific treatment for osmotic demyelination syndrome except for supportive care and treatment of coexisting conditions. Once an osmotic derangement is identified, we recommend correcting chronically elevated serum glucose values gradually to avoid overtreatment, just as we would do with elevated serum sodium levels. Changes in neurologic findings, serum blood glucose level, and serum osmolality should be followed closely. A review showed that a favorable recovery from osmotic demyelination syndrome is possible even with severe neurologic deficits.⁴

TAKE-AWAY POINTS

• Osmotic demyelination syndrome is a rare but severe complication of a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.
• Physicians should be aware not only of changes in serum sodium, but also of changes in serum osmolality and serum glucose.
• When a new-onset neurologic deficit is found during treatment of a hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, suspect osmotic demyelination syndrome, monitor changes in serum osmolality, and consider brain MRI.