Hospital Medicine

The “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion. https://www.choosingwisely.org/

A 67-year-old man with acute myeloid leukemia who has recently completed a cycle of consolidation chemotherapy presents to the emergency room with fatigue and bruising. He is found to have pancytopenia due to chemotherapy. His absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is 380/mm³,and he has no symptoms or signs of infection. He is admitted for transfusion support and asks for a dinner tray. The provider reflexively prescribes a neutropenic diet.

Although aggressive chemotherapy regimens have significantly improved survival rates in patients with cancer, these intensive regimens put patients at risk for a number of complications, including severe, prolonged neutropenia. Patients with neutropenia, particularly those with ANC< 500/mm³, are at a significantly increased risk for infection. Common sites of infection include the blood stream, skin, lungs, urinary tract, and, particularly, the gastrointestinal tract.¹ Oncologists and dieticians first designed neutropenic diets, or low-bacteria diets, to limit the introduction of pathogenic microbes to the gastrointestinal system. Neutropenic diets typically limit the intake of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, raw or undercooked meats and fish, and soft cheese made from unpasteurized milk. Despite the widespread recommendation of the neutropenic diet, no standardized guidelines exist, and the utilization of the diet and its contents vary widely among and within institutions.²

The neutropenic diet is a national phenomenon. A survey of 156 United States members of the Association of Community Cancer Centers revealed that 120 (78%) of the members had placed patients with neutropenia on restricted diets.² The triggers for prescription (neutropenia, or starting chemotherapy), ANC threshold for prescription, and duration of prescription (throughout chemotherapy or just when neutropenic) were not uniform. A majority of centers restricted fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and raw eggs, while some locations also restricted tap water, herbs and spices, and alcoholic beverages.² Similarly, a study of practices in 29 countries across 6 continents found that 88% of centers have some version of a neutropenic diet guideline with significant heterogeneity in their prescription and content. For example, dried fruits were unrestricted in 23% of centers but were forbidden in 43%.³

The rationale behind the neutropenic diet is to limit the bacterial load delivered to the gut. Studies have shown that organisms such as Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella have been isolated from food, particularly fruits and vegetables.^4,5 The ingestion of contaminated food products may serve as a source of pathogenic bacteria, which may cause potentially life-threatening infections. Mucositis, a common complication among cancer patients receiving therapy, predisposes patients to infection by disrupting the mucosal barrier, allowing bacteria to translocate from the gut to the bloodstream. Given that neutropenia and mucositis often occur simultaneously, these patients are at an increased risk of infections.⁶ Cooking destroys bacteria if present, rendering cooked foods safe. Thus, the avoidance of fresh fruits and vegetables and other foods considered to have high bacterial loads should theoretically decrease the risk of infections in these patients.

Researchers have investigated the ability of the neutropenic diet to reduce infection in adult and pediatric neutropenic patients. A study involving 153 patients receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome randomized 78 patients to a diet that restricted raw fruits and vegetables and 75 patients to a diet that included those foods.⁸ The groups had similar rates of major infection (29% in the cooked group versus 35% in the raw group, P = .60) with no difference in mortality.⁷ In a randomized, multiinstitutional trial of 150 pediatric oncology patients, 77 patients received a neutropenic diet plus a diet based on the food safety guidelines approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while 73 children received a diet based on FDA-approved food safety guidelines.⁸ Infection rates between the groups were not significantly different (35% vs 33% respectively, P = .78).

Intensive conditioning regimens place hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) recipients at an even greater risk of infectious complications than other patients and may increase gastrointestinal toxicity and prolong neutropenia. A study from a single academic US center included 726 HSCT recipients, 363 of whom received a neutropenic diet and 363 of whom received a general diet. Significantly fewer infections were observed in the general diet group than in the neutropenic diet group. Notably, this study was a retrospective trial, and approximately 75% of participants were autologous HSCT recipients, who traditionally have low risks of infection. A survey and analysis of nonpharmacologic anti-infective measures in 339 children with leukemia enrolled in the multicenter Acute Myeloid Leukemia Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster 2004 trial also did not show that the neutropenic diet has protective effects on infection rates.⁹ A metaanalysis that compiled data from the studies mentioned above found the hazard ratio for any infection (major or minor) and fever was actually higher in the neutropenic diet arm (relative risk 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.34, P = .007) relative to that in the unrestricted arm.¹⁰

The inefficacy of the neutropenic diet may be attributed to the fact that many of the organisms found on fresh fruits and vegetables are part of the normal flora in the gastrointestinal tract. A Dutch prospective randomized pilot study of 20 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing chemotherapy compared the gut flora in patients on a low-bacteria diet versus that in patients on a normal hospital diet. Gut colonization by potential pathogens or infection rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.¹¹

In addition to mucositis, the common gastrointestinal complications of chemotherapy include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, food aversions, and changes in smells and taste, which limit oral intake.¹² Unnecessary dietary restrictions can place patients at further risk of inadequate intake and malnutrition.¹³ In the outpatient setting, compliance with the neutropenic diet is also problematic. In 1 study of 28 patients educated about the neutropenic diet, only 16 (57%) were compliant with the diet as revealed through telephone-based assessments at 6 and 12 weeks, and infection rates were not different between compliant versus noncompliant patients.¹⁴ Patients and family members reported that following the neutropenic diet requires considerably more effort than following a less restrictive diet.⁸ Maintaining nutrition in this patient population is already challenging, and the restriction of a wide variety of food items (fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy, certain meats, eggs) can cause malnutrition, low patient satisfaction, and poor quality of life.^13,14

Evidence shows no benefit of the neutropenic diet in any particular clinical scenario or patient population. However, despite the dearth of evidence to support neutropenic diets, the overall data regarding neutropenic diets are sparse. Randomized control trials to date have been limited by their small size with possible confounding by the type of malignancy and cancer therapy; use of prophylactic antibiotics, growth factors, and air-filtered rooms; variation in contents and adherence to the prescribed diet; and inpatient versus outpatient status. The study that included HSCT recipients was a retrospective trial, and a majority of patients were autologous HSCT recipients.¹⁵ Although no study has specifically investigated the neutropenic diet in preventing infection in patients with noncancer-related neutropenia, no reason exists to suspect that it is helpful. The FDA advises safe food-handling practices for other immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients and patients with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and the same principles can likely be applied to patients with noncancer-related neutropenia.

WHAT WE SHOULD DO INSTEAD

Although the neutropenic diet has not been proven beneficial, the prevention of food-borne infection in this population remains important. FDA-published guidelines, which promote safe food handling to prevent food contamination in patients with cancer, should be followed in inpatient and outpatient settings.¹⁶ These guidelines allow for fresh fruits and vegetables as long as they have been adequately washed. Cleaning (eg, cleaning the lids of canned foods before opening, hand washing), separating raw meats from other foods, cooking to the right temperature (eg, cooking eggs until the yolk and white are firm), and chilling/refrigerating food appropriately are strongly emphasized. These guidelines are also recommended by the American Dietetic Association. Despite additional flexibility, patients following the FDA diet guidelines do not have increased risk of infection.⁸ At our hospitals, the neutropenic diet can no longer be ordered. Neutropenic patients are free to consume all items on the general hospital menu, including eggs, meat, soft cheeses, nuts, and washed raw fruits and vegetables. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections do not specifically address diet.¹⁷ We call upon them to note the lack of benefit and potential harm of the neutropenic diet in the guidelines. Such an action may persuade more institutions to abandon this practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Neutropenic diets, or low-bacteria diets, should not be prescribed to neutropenic patients.
• Properly handled and adequately washed fresh fruits and vegetables can safely be consumed by patients with neutropenia.
• Patients and hospitals should follow FDA-published safe food-handling guidelines to prevent food contamination.

A general diet can be safely ordered for our patient in the presented clinical scenario. Available data from individual studies and pooled data provide no evidence that neutropenic diets prevent infectious complications in patients with neutropenia.

Hospital kitchens must adhere to the food-handling guidelines issued by the FDA, and following these guidelines should provide adequate protection against food-borne infection, even in patients who are immunocompromised. Instead of restricting food groups, the FDA guidelines focus on safe food-handling practices. Less dietary restrictions provide patient’s additional opportunities for balanced nutrition and for food choices based on personal preferences or cultural practices.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason?” Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason” topics by emailing [email protected].Disclosures: There are no financial or other disclosures for any author.

Disclosures

There are no financial or other disclosures for any author.

The “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion. https://www.choosingwisely.org/

A 67-year-old man with acute myeloid leukemia who has recently completed a cycle of consolidation chemotherapy presents to the emergency room with fatigue and bruising. He is found to have pancytopenia due to chemotherapy. His absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is 380/mm³,and he has no symptoms or signs of infection. He is admitted for transfusion support and asks for a dinner tray. The provider reflexively prescribes a neutropenic diet.

Although aggressive chemotherapy regimens have significantly improved survival rates in patients with cancer, these intensive regimens put patients at risk for a number of complications, including severe, prolonged neutropenia. Patients with neutropenia, particularly those with ANC< 500/mm³, are at a significantly increased risk for infection. Common sites of infection include the blood stream, skin, lungs, urinary tract, and, particularly, the gastrointestinal tract.¹ Oncologists and dieticians first designed neutropenic diets, or low-bacteria diets, to limit the introduction of pathogenic microbes to the gastrointestinal system. Neutropenic diets typically limit the intake of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, raw or undercooked meats and fish, and soft cheese made from unpasteurized milk. Despite the widespread recommendation of the neutropenic diet, no standardized guidelines exist, and the utilization of the diet and its contents vary widely among and within institutions.²

The neutropenic diet is a national phenomenon. A survey of 156 United States members of the Association of Community Cancer Centers revealed that 120 (78%) of the members had placed patients with neutropenia on restricted diets.² The triggers for prescription (neutropenia, or starting chemotherapy), ANC threshold for prescription, and duration of prescription (throughout chemotherapy or just when neutropenic) were not uniform. A majority of centers restricted fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and raw eggs, while some locations also restricted tap water, herbs and spices, and alcoholic beverages.² Similarly, a study of practices in 29 countries across 6 continents found that 88% of centers have some version of a neutropenic diet guideline with significant heterogeneity in their prescription and content. For example, dried fruits were unrestricted in 23% of centers but were forbidden in 43%.³

The rationale behind the neutropenic diet is to limit the bacterial load delivered to the gut. Studies have shown that organisms such as Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella have been isolated from food, particularly fruits and vegetables.^4,5 The ingestion of contaminated food products may serve as a source of pathogenic bacteria, which may cause potentially life-threatening infections. Mucositis, a common complication among cancer patients receiving therapy, predisposes patients to infection by disrupting the mucosal barrier, allowing bacteria to translocate from the gut to the bloodstream. Given that neutropenia and mucositis often occur simultaneously, these patients are at an increased risk of infections.⁶ Cooking destroys bacteria if present, rendering cooked foods safe. Thus, the avoidance of fresh fruits and vegetables and other foods considered to have high bacterial loads should theoretically decrease the risk of infections in these patients.

Researchers have investigated the ability of the neutropenic diet to reduce infection in adult and pediatric neutropenic patients. A study involving 153 patients receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome randomized 78 patients to a diet that restricted raw fruits and vegetables and 75 patients to a diet that included those foods.⁸ The groups had similar rates of major infection (29% in the cooked group versus 35% in the raw group, P = .60) with no difference in mortality.⁷ In a randomized, multiinstitutional trial of 150 pediatric oncology patients, 77 patients received a neutropenic diet plus a diet based on the food safety guidelines approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while 73 children received a diet based on FDA-approved food safety guidelines.⁸ Infection rates between the groups were not significantly different (35% vs 33% respectively, P = .78).

Intensive conditioning regimens place hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) recipients at an even greater risk of infectious complications than other patients and may increase gastrointestinal toxicity and prolong neutropenia. A study from a single academic US center included 726 HSCT recipients, 363 of whom received a neutropenic diet and 363 of whom received a general diet. Significantly fewer infections were observed in the general diet group than in the neutropenic diet group. Notably, this study was a retrospective trial, and approximately 75% of participants were autologous HSCT recipients, who traditionally have low risks of infection. A survey and analysis of nonpharmacologic anti-infective measures in 339 children with leukemia enrolled in the multicenter Acute Myeloid Leukemia Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster 2004 trial also did not show that the neutropenic diet has protective effects on infection rates.⁹ A metaanalysis that compiled data from the studies mentioned above found the hazard ratio for any infection (major or minor) and fever was actually higher in the neutropenic diet arm (relative risk 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.34, P = .007) relative to that in the unrestricted arm.¹⁰

The inefficacy of the neutropenic diet may be attributed to the fact that many of the organisms found on fresh fruits and vegetables are part of the normal flora in the gastrointestinal tract. A Dutch prospective randomized pilot study of 20 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing chemotherapy compared the gut flora in patients on a low-bacteria diet versus that in patients on a normal hospital diet. Gut colonization by potential pathogens or infection rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.¹¹

In addition to mucositis, the common gastrointestinal complications of chemotherapy include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, food aversions, and changes in smells and taste, which limit oral intake.¹² Unnecessary dietary restrictions can place patients at further risk of inadequate intake and malnutrition.¹³ In the outpatient setting, compliance with the neutropenic diet is also problematic. In 1 study of 28 patients educated about the neutropenic diet, only 16 (57%) were compliant with the diet as revealed through telephone-based assessments at 6 and 12 weeks, and infection rates were not different between compliant versus noncompliant patients.¹⁴ Patients and family members reported that following the neutropenic diet requires considerably more effort than following a less restrictive diet.⁸ Maintaining nutrition in this patient population is already challenging, and the restriction of a wide variety of food items (fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy, certain meats, eggs) can cause malnutrition, low patient satisfaction, and poor quality of life.^13,14

Evidence shows no benefit of the neutropenic diet in any particular clinical scenario or patient population. However, despite the dearth of evidence to support neutropenic diets, the overall data regarding neutropenic diets are sparse. Randomized control trials to date have been limited by their small size with possible confounding by the type of malignancy and cancer therapy; use of prophylactic antibiotics, growth factors, and air-filtered rooms; variation in contents and adherence to the prescribed diet; and inpatient versus outpatient status. The study that included HSCT recipients was a retrospective trial, and a majority of patients were autologous HSCT recipients.¹⁵ Although no study has specifically investigated the neutropenic diet in preventing infection in patients with noncancer-related neutropenia, no reason exists to suspect that it is helpful. The FDA advises safe food-handling practices for other immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients and patients with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and the same principles can likely be applied to patients with noncancer-related neutropenia.

WHAT WE SHOULD DO INSTEAD

Although the neutropenic diet has not been proven beneficial, the prevention of food-borne infection in this population remains important. FDA-published guidelines, which promote safe food handling to prevent food contamination in patients with cancer, should be followed in inpatient and outpatient settings.¹⁶ These guidelines allow for fresh fruits and vegetables as long as they have been adequately washed. Cleaning (eg, cleaning the lids of canned foods before opening, hand washing), separating raw meats from other foods, cooking to the right temperature (eg, cooking eggs until the yolk and white are firm), and chilling/refrigerating food appropriately are strongly emphasized. These guidelines are also recommended by the American Dietetic Association. Despite additional flexibility, patients following the FDA diet guidelines do not have increased risk of infection.⁸ At our hospitals, the neutropenic diet can no longer be ordered. Neutropenic patients are free to consume all items on the general hospital menu, including eggs, meat, soft cheeses, nuts, and washed raw fruits and vegetables. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections do not specifically address diet.¹⁷ We call upon them to note the lack of benefit and potential harm of the neutropenic diet in the guidelines. Such an action may persuade more institutions to abandon this practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Neutropenic diets, or low-bacteria diets, should not be prescribed to neutropenic patients.
• Properly handled and adequately washed fresh fruits and vegetables can safely be consumed by patients with neutropenia.
• Patients and hospitals should follow FDA-published safe food-handling guidelines to prevent food contamination.

A general diet can be safely ordered for our patient in the presented clinical scenario. Available data from individual studies and pooled data provide no evidence that neutropenic diets prevent infectious complications in patients with neutropenia.

Hospital kitchens must adhere to the food-handling guidelines issued by the FDA, and following these guidelines should provide adequate protection against food-borne infection, even in patients who are immunocompromised. Instead of restricting food groups, the FDA guidelines focus on safe food-handling practices. Less dietary restrictions provide patient’s additional opportunities for balanced nutrition and for food choices based on personal preferences or cultural practices.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason?” Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason” topics by emailing [email protected].Disclosures: There are no financial or other disclosures for any author.

Disclosures

There are no financial or other disclosures for any author.

The “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion. https://www.choosingwisely.org/

A 67-year-old man with acute myeloid leukemia who has recently completed a cycle of consolidation chemotherapy presents to the emergency room with fatigue and bruising. He is found to have pancytopenia due to chemotherapy. His absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is 380/mm³,and he has no symptoms or signs of infection. He is admitted for transfusion support and asks for a dinner tray. The provider reflexively prescribes a neutropenic diet.

Although aggressive chemotherapy regimens have significantly improved survival rates in patients with cancer, these intensive regimens put patients at risk for a number of complications, including severe, prolonged neutropenia. Patients with neutropenia, particularly those with ANC< 500/mm³, are at a significantly increased risk for infection. Common sites of infection include the blood stream, skin, lungs, urinary tract, and, particularly, the gastrointestinal tract.¹ Oncologists and dieticians first designed neutropenic diets, or low-bacteria diets, to limit the introduction of pathogenic microbes to the gastrointestinal system. Neutropenic diets typically limit the intake of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, raw or undercooked meats and fish, and soft cheese made from unpasteurized milk. Despite the widespread recommendation of the neutropenic diet, no standardized guidelines exist, and the utilization of the diet and its contents vary widely among and within institutions.²

The neutropenic diet is a national phenomenon. A survey of 156 United States members of the Association of Community Cancer Centers revealed that 120 (78%) of the members had placed patients with neutropenia on restricted diets.² The triggers for prescription (neutropenia, or starting chemotherapy), ANC threshold for prescription, and duration of prescription (throughout chemotherapy or just when neutropenic) were not uniform. A majority of centers restricted fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and raw eggs, while some locations also restricted tap water, herbs and spices, and alcoholic beverages.² Similarly, a study of practices in 29 countries across 6 continents found that 88% of centers have some version of a neutropenic diet guideline with significant heterogeneity in their prescription and content. For example, dried fruits were unrestricted in 23% of centers but were forbidden in 43%.³

The rationale behind the neutropenic diet is to limit the bacterial load delivered to the gut. Studies have shown that organisms such as Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella have been isolated from food, particularly fruits and vegetables.^4,5 The ingestion of contaminated food products may serve as a source of pathogenic bacteria, which may cause potentially life-threatening infections. Mucositis, a common complication among cancer patients receiving therapy, predisposes patients to infection by disrupting the mucosal barrier, allowing bacteria to translocate from the gut to the bloodstream. Given that neutropenia and mucositis often occur simultaneously, these patients are at an increased risk of infections.⁶ Cooking destroys bacteria if present, rendering cooked foods safe. Thus, the avoidance of fresh fruits and vegetables and other foods considered to have high bacterial loads should theoretically decrease the risk of infections in these patients.

Researchers have investigated the ability of the neutropenic diet to reduce infection in adult and pediatric neutropenic patients. A study involving 153 patients receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome randomized 78 patients to a diet that restricted raw fruits and vegetables and 75 patients to a diet that included those foods.⁸ The groups had similar rates of major infection (29% in the cooked group versus 35% in the raw group, P = .60) with no difference in mortality.⁷ In a randomized, multiinstitutional trial of 150 pediatric oncology patients, 77 patients received a neutropenic diet plus a diet based on the food safety guidelines approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while 73 children received a diet based on FDA-approved food safety guidelines.⁸ Infection rates between the groups were not significantly different (35% vs 33% respectively, P = .78).

Intensive conditioning regimens place hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) recipients at an even greater risk of infectious complications than other patients and may increase gastrointestinal toxicity and prolong neutropenia. A study from a single academic US center included 726 HSCT recipients, 363 of whom received a neutropenic diet and 363 of whom received a general diet. Significantly fewer infections were observed in the general diet group than in the neutropenic diet group. Notably, this study was a retrospective trial, and approximately 75% of participants were autologous HSCT recipients, who traditionally have low risks of infection. A survey and analysis of nonpharmacologic anti-infective measures in 339 children with leukemia enrolled in the multicenter Acute Myeloid Leukemia Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster 2004 trial also did not show that the neutropenic diet has protective effects on infection rates.⁹ A metaanalysis that compiled data from the studies mentioned above found the hazard ratio for any infection (major or minor) and fever was actually higher in the neutropenic diet arm (relative risk 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.34, P = .007) relative to that in the unrestricted arm.¹⁰

The inefficacy of the neutropenic diet may be attributed to the fact that many of the organisms found on fresh fruits and vegetables are part of the normal flora in the gastrointestinal tract. A Dutch prospective randomized pilot study of 20 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing chemotherapy compared the gut flora in patients on a low-bacteria diet versus that in patients on a normal hospital diet. Gut colonization by potential pathogens or infection rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.¹¹

In addition to mucositis, the common gastrointestinal complications of chemotherapy include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, food aversions, and changes in smells and taste, which limit oral intake.¹² Unnecessary dietary restrictions can place patients at further risk of inadequate intake and malnutrition.¹³ In the outpatient setting, compliance with the neutropenic diet is also problematic. In 1 study of 28 patients educated about the neutropenic diet, only 16 (57%) were compliant with the diet as revealed through telephone-based assessments at 6 and 12 weeks, and infection rates were not different between compliant versus noncompliant patients.¹⁴ Patients and family members reported that following the neutropenic diet requires considerably more effort than following a less restrictive diet.⁸ Maintaining nutrition in this patient population is already challenging, and the restriction of a wide variety of food items (fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy, certain meats, eggs) can cause malnutrition, low patient satisfaction, and poor quality of life.^13,14

Evidence shows no benefit of the neutropenic diet in any particular clinical scenario or patient population. However, despite the dearth of evidence to support neutropenic diets, the overall data regarding neutropenic diets are sparse. Randomized control trials to date have been limited by their small size with possible confounding by the type of malignancy and cancer therapy; use of prophylactic antibiotics, growth factors, and air-filtered rooms; variation in contents and adherence to the prescribed diet; and inpatient versus outpatient status. The study that included HSCT recipients was a retrospective trial, and a majority of patients were autologous HSCT recipients.¹⁵ Although no study has specifically investigated the neutropenic diet in preventing infection in patients with noncancer-related neutropenia, no reason exists to suspect that it is helpful. The FDA advises safe food-handling practices for other immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients and patients with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and the same principles can likely be applied to patients with noncancer-related neutropenia.

WHAT WE SHOULD DO INSTEAD

Although the neutropenic diet has not been proven beneficial, the prevention of food-borne infection in this population remains important. FDA-published guidelines, which promote safe food handling to prevent food contamination in patients with cancer, should be followed in inpatient and outpatient settings.¹⁶ These guidelines allow for fresh fruits and vegetables as long as they have been adequately washed. Cleaning (eg, cleaning the lids of canned foods before opening, hand washing), separating raw meats from other foods, cooking to the right temperature (eg, cooking eggs until the yolk and white are firm), and chilling/refrigerating food appropriately are strongly emphasized. These guidelines are also recommended by the American Dietetic Association. Despite additional flexibility, patients following the FDA diet guidelines do not have increased risk of infection.⁸ At our hospitals, the neutropenic diet can no longer be ordered. Neutropenic patients are free to consume all items on the general hospital menu, including eggs, meat, soft cheeses, nuts, and washed raw fruits and vegetables. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections do not specifically address diet.¹⁷ We call upon them to note the lack of benefit and potential harm of the neutropenic diet in the guidelines. Such an action may persuade more institutions to abandon this practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Neutropenic diets, or low-bacteria diets, should not be prescribed to neutropenic patients.
• Properly handled and adequately washed fresh fruits and vegetables can safely be consumed by patients with neutropenia.
• Patients and hospitals should follow FDA-published safe food-handling guidelines to prevent food contamination.

A general diet can be safely ordered for our patient in the presented clinical scenario. Available data from individual studies and pooled data provide no evidence that neutropenic diets prevent infectious complications in patients with neutropenia.

Hospital kitchens must adhere to the food-handling guidelines issued by the FDA, and following these guidelines should provide adequate protection against food-borne infection, even in patients who are immunocompromised. Instead of restricting food groups, the FDA guidelines focus on safe food-handling practices. Less dietary restrictions provide patient’s additional opportunities for balanced nutrition and for food choices based on personal preferences or cultural practices.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason?” Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason” topics by emailing [email protected].Disclosures: There are no financial or other disclosures for any author.

Disclosures

There are no financial or other disclosures for any author.

A 70-year-old man presented to the emergency department with 5 days of decreased appetite, frequent urination, tremors, and memory difficulties. He also reported 9 months of malaise, generalized weakness, and weight loss. There was no history of fever, chills, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, pain, or focal neurologic complaints.

This patient exemplifies a common clinical challenge: an older adult with several possibly unrelated concerns. In many patients, a new presentation is usually either a different manifestation of a known condition (eg, a complication of an established malignancy) or the emergence of something they are at risk for based on health behavior or other characteristics (eg, lung cancer in a smoker). The diagnostic process in older adults can be complicated because many have, or are at risk for, multiple chronic conditions.

After reviewing the timeline of symptoms, the presence of 9 months of symptoms suggests a chronic and progressive underlying process, perhaps with subsequent superimposition of an acute problem. Although it is not certain whether chronic and acute symptoms are caused by the same process, this assumption is reasonable. The superimposition of acute symptoms on a chronic process may represent progression of the underlying condition or an acute complication of the underlying disease. However, the patient’s chronic symptoms of malaise, weakness, and weight loss are nonspecific.

Although malignancy is a consideration given the age of the patient and time course of symptoms, attributing the symptoms to a specific pattern of disease or building a cogent differential diagnosis is difficult until additional information is obtained. One strategy is to try to localize the findings to 1 or more organ systems; for example, given that tremors and memory difficulties localize to the central nervous system, neurodegenerative disorders, such as “Parkinson plus” syndromes, and cerebellar disease are possible. However, this tactic still leaves a relatively broad set of symptoms without an immediate and clear unifying cause.

The patient’s medical history included hyperlipidemia, peripheral neuropathy, prostate cancer, and papillary bladder cancer. The patient was admitted to the hospital 4 months earlier for severe sepsis presumed secondary to a urinary tract infection, although bacterial cultures were sterile. His social history was notable for a 50 pack-year smoking history. Outpatient medications included alfuzosin, gabapentin, simvastatin, hydrocodone, and cholecalciferol. He used a Bright Light Therapy lamp for 1 hour per week and occasionally used calcium carbonate for indigestion. The patient’s sister had a history of throat cancer.

On examination, the patient was detected with blood pressure of 104/56 mm Hg, pulse of 85 beats per minute, temperature of 98.2 °F, oxygen saturation of 97% on ambient air, and body mass index of 18 kg/m². The patient appeared frail with mildly decreased strength in the upper and lower extremities bilaterally. The remainder of the physical examination was normal. Reflexes were symmetric, no tremors or rigidity was noted, sensation was intact to light touch, and the response to the Romberg maneuver was normal.

Past medical history is the cornerstone of the diagnostic process. The history of 2 different malignancies is the most striking element in this case. Papillary bladder cancer is usually a local process, but additional information is needed regarding its stage and previous treatment, including whether or not the patient received Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) vaccine, which can rarely be associated with infectious and inflammatory complications. Metastatic prostate cancer could certainly account for his symptomatology, and bladder outlet obstruction could explain the history of urinary frequency and probable urosepsis. His medication list suggested no obvious causes to explain his presentation, except that cholecalciferol and calcium carbonate, which when taken in excess, can cause hypercalcemia. This finding is of particular importance given that many of the patient’s symptoms, including polyuria, malaise, weakness, tremor, memory difficulties, anorexia, acute kidney injury and (indirectly) hypotension and weight loss, are also seen in patients with hypercalcemia. The relatively normal result of the neurologic examination decreases the probability of a primary neurologic disorder and increases the likelihood that his neurologic symptoms are due to a global systemic process. The relative hypotension and weight loss similarly support the possibility that the patient is experiencing a chronic and progressive process.

The differential diagnosis remains broad. An underlying malignancy would explain the chronic progressive course, and superimposed hypercalcemia would explain the acute symptoms of polyuria, tremor, and memory changes. Endocrinopathies including hyperthyroidism or adrenal insufficiency are other possibilities. A chronic progressive infection, such as tuberculosis, is possible, although no epidemiologic factors that increase his risk for this disease are present.

The patient had serum calcium of 14.5 mg/dL, ionized calcium of 3.46 mEq/L, albumin of 3.6 g/dL, BUN of 62 mg/dL, and creatinine of 3.9 mg/dL (all values were normal 3 months prior). His electrolytes and liver function were otherwise normal. Moreover, he had hemoglobin level of 10.5 mg/dL, white blood cell count of 4.8 × 10⁹cells/L, and platelet count of 203 × 10⁹ cells/L.

Until this point, only nonspecific findings were identified, leading to a broad differential diagnosis with little specificity. However, laboratory examinations confirm the suspected diagnosis of hypercalcemia, provide an opportunity to explain the patient’s symptoms, and offer a “lens” to narrow the differential diagnosis and guide the diagnostic evaluation. Hypercalcemia is most commonly secondary to primary hyperparathyroidism or malignancy. Primary hyperparathyroidism is unlikely in this patient given the relatively acute onset of symptoms. The degree of hypercalcemia is also atypical for primary hyperparathyroidism because it rarely exceeds 13 mg/dL, although the use of concurrent vitamin D and calcium supplementation could explain the high calcium level. Malignancy seems more likely given the degree of hypercalcemia in the setting of weight loss, tobacco use, and history of malignancy. Malignancy may cause hypercalcemia through multiple disparate mechanisms, including development of osteolytic bone metastases, elaboration of parathyroid hormone-related Peptide (PTHrP), increased production of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or, very rarely, ectopic production of parathyroid hormone (PTH). However, none of these mechanisms are particularly common in bladder or prostate cancer, which are the known malignancies in the patient. Other less likely and less common causes of hypercalcemia are also possible given the clinical clues, including vitamin D toxicity and milk alkali syndrome (vitamin D and calcium carbonate supplementation), multiple endocrine neoplasia (a sister with “throat cancer”), and granulomatous disease (weight loss). At this point, further laboratory evaluations would be helpful, specifically determination of PTH and PTHrP levels and serum and urine protein electrophoresis.

With respect to the patient’s past medical history, his Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer was diagnosed 12 years prior to admission and treated with external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. His bladder cancer was diagnosed 3 years before admission and treated with tumor resection followed by 2 rounds of intravesical BCG (iBCG), 1 round of mitomycin C, and 2 additional rounds of iBCG over the course of treatment spanning 2 years and 6 months. The treatment was complicated by urethral strictures requiring dilation, ureteral outlet obstruction requiring left ureteral stent placement, and multiple urinary tract infections.

The patient’s last round of iBCG was delivered 6 months prior to his current presentation. The patient’s hospital admission 4 months earlier for severe sepsis was presumed secondary to a urologic source considering that significant pyuria was noted on urinalysis and he was treated with meropenem, although bacterial cultures of blood and urine were sterile. From the time of discharge until his current presentation, he experienced progressive weakness and an approximately 50 lb weight loss.

The prior cancers and associated treatments of the patient may be involved in his current presentation. The simplest explanation would be metastatic disease with resultant hypercalcemia, which is atypical of either prostate or bladder cancer. The history of genitourinary surgery could predispose the patient to a chronic infection of the urinary tract with indolent organisms, such as a fungus, especially given the prior sepsis without clear etiology. However, the history would not explain the presence of hypercalcemia. Tuberculosis must thus be considered given the weight loss, hypercalcemia, and “sterile pyuria” of the patient. A more intriguing possibility is whether or not the patient’s constellation of signs and symptoms might be a late effect of iBCG. Intravesical BCG for treatment of localized bladder cancer is occasionally associated with complications. BCG is a modified live form of Mycobacterium bovis which invokes an intense inflammatory reaction when instilled into the bladder. These complications include disseminated infection and local complications, such as genitourinary infections. BCG infection might also explain the severe sepsis of unclear etiology that the patient had experienced 4 months earlier. Most interestingly, hypercalcemia has been described in the setting of BCG infection. Diagnosis of disseminated BCG is best made via culture or polymerase chain reaction testing for M. bovis at potential sites of involvement, including the blood. Nevertheless, a common presentation of a common disorder is still most likely. If his current presentation is distilled down to a chronic presentation of weakness, weight loss, and hypercalcemia in the setting of known malignancy, then the underlying malignancy seems to offer the most unifying explanation. Given that neither of his known cancers are commonly associated with hypercalcemia, the possibility that he has developed a third malignancy must also be considered.

In the hospital, the patient received intravenous normal saline, furosemide, and pamidronate. Evaluation for hypercalcemia revealed appropriately suppressed PTH (8 mg/dL), and normal levels of PTHrP (<.74 pmol/L), prostate specific antigen (<.01 ng/mL), and morning cortisol (16.7 mcg/dL). Serum and urine electrophoresis did not show evidence for monoclonal gammopathy, and the 25-hydroxy vitamin D level (39.5 ng/mL) was within the normal limits (normal range 20.1-50.0 ng/mL). The patient had elevated levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D (122 ng/mL, normal range 19.9–79.3 pg/mL), lactate dehydrogenase (196 units/L, normal 50–150 units/L), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (153 units/L, normal 14–82 units/L).

The suppressed PTH level makes primary hyperparathyroidism unlikely, the low PTHrP level decreases the probability of a paraneoplastic process, and the normal protein electrophoresis makes multiple myeloma unlikely. The presence of a significantly elevated 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D level with a normal 25-hydroxy vitamin D level indicates extrarenal conversion of 25-hydroxy vitamin D by 1-hydroxylase as the etiology of hypercalcemia. Increased activity of 1-hydroxylase is the most consistent with granulomatous diseases, including sarcoidosis, and, with the exception of lymphoma, would not be expected in hypercalcemia malignancy. This mechanism is also associated with tuberculosis, disseminated fungal infections, such as coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis, and as a late effect of BCG treatment, regardless of whether disseminated infection or granulomatous immune response. Elevated lactate dehydrogenase and angiotensin-converting enzyme levels may also be noted in many of these disorders.

Lymphoma would appear to be the most likely diagnosis as it accounts for most of the clinical findings observed in the patient and is a fairly common disorder. Sarcoidosis is also reasonably common and would explain the laboratory abnormalities but is not usually associated with weight loss and frailty. Disseminated infections, such as tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, and coccidioidomycosis, are all possible, but the patient lacks key risk factors for these infections. A complication of iBCG is the most intriguing possibility and could account for many of the patient’s clinical findings, including the septic episode, which is an event not clearly accounted for by the other diagnostic possibilities. However, disseminated BCG and hypersensitivity reactions to BCG leading to hypercalcemia are rare. When asked to choose between the most interesting possibility and the most common possibility, the most common will usually be the best (and safest) bet. Nonetheless, the effects of prior BCG treatment, including disseminated infection or diffuse immune-mediated granulomatous disease, would be near the top of the differential diagnosis in this case.

The bone survey was normal, the renal ultrasound examination showed nodular wall thickening of the bladder with areas of calcification, and the CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed an area of calcification in the superior portion of the bladder but no evidence of lymphadenopathy or masses to suggest lymphoma. Aerobic and anaerobic blood and urine cultures were sterile. The patient was discharged 12 days after admission with plans for further outpatient diagnostic evaluation. At this time, his serum calcium had stabilized at 10.5 mg/dL with pamidronate, diuretics, and aggressive oral hydration.

Hypercalcemia is a common finding in both hospital and ambulatory settings. The classic symptoms associated with hypercalcemia are aptly summarized with the mnemonic “bones, stones, abdominal groans, and psychiatric overtones” (to represent the associated skeletal involvement, renal disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and effects on the nervous system). However, the severity and type of symptoms vary depending on the degree of hypercalcemia, acuity of onset, and underlying etiology. The vast majority (90%) of hypercalcemia cases are due to primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy.³ Measuring the PTH level is a key step in the diagnostic evaluation process. An isolated elevation of PTH confirms the presence of primary or possibly tertiary hyperparathyroidism. Low PTH concentrations (<20 pg/mL) occur in the settings of PTHrP or vitamin-D-mediated hypercalcemia such as hypervitaminosis D, malignancy, or granulomatous disease.

Elevated PTHrP occurs most commonly in squamous cell, renal, bladder, and ovarian carcinomas.^3,4 Elevated levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D can occur with excessive consumption of vitamin D-containing products and some herbal supplements. In this case, neither PTHrP nor 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was elevated, leading to an exhaustive search for other causes. Although iBCG treatment is a rare cause of hypercalcemia, 2 previous reports indicated the presence of hypercalcemia secondary to granuloma formation in treated patients.^5,6

The finding of an elevated 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D level was unexpected. As the discussant mentioned, this finding is associated with lymphoma and with granulomatous disorders that were not initially strong diagnostic considerations in the patient. A variety of granulomatous diseases can cause hypercalcemia. Sarcoidosis and tuberculosis are the most common, but berylliosis, fungal infections, Crohn’s disease, silicone exposure, and granulomatosis with polyangiitis may also be associated with hypercalcemia.⁷ The mechanism for hypercalcemia in these situations is increased intestinal calcium absorption mediated by inappropriately increased, PTH-independent, extrarenal calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D) production. Activated monocytes upregulate 25(OH)D-alpha-hydroxylase, converting 25-hydroxy vitamin D to 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D. Concurrently, the elevated levels of gamma-interferon render macrophages resistant to the normal regulatory feedback mechanisms, thereby promoting the production and inhibiting the degradation of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D.⁸

The tuberculosis vaccine BCG is an attenuated form of M. bovis and was originally developed by Albert Calmette and Camille Guérin at the Pasteur Institute in Paris in the early 20^th century. In addition to its use as a vaccine against tuberculosis, BCG can protect against other mycobacterial infections, help treat atopic conditions via stimulation of the Th1 cellular immune response, and has been used as an antineoplastic agent. To date, BCG remains the most effective agent available for intravesical treatment of superficial bladder cancer.^9,10 Although iBCG therapy is considered relatively safe and well-tolerated, rare complications do occur. Localized symptoms (bladder irritation, hematuria) and/or flu-like symptoms are common immediately after instillation and thought to be related to the cellular immune response and inflammatory cascade triggered by mycobacterial antigens.¹¹ Other adverse effects, such as infectious and noninfectious complications, may occur months to years after treatment with BCG, and the associated symptoms can be quite nonspecific. Infectious complications include mycobacterial prostatitis, orchiepididymitis, balantitis, pneumonia, hepatitis, nephritis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, infected orthopedic and vascular prostheses, endocarditis, and bacteremia. Traumatic catheterization is the most common risk factor for infection with BCG.^11-13 Noninfectious complications include reactive arthritis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), and sterile granulomatous infiltration of solid organs.

The protean and nonspecific nature of the adverse effects of iBCG treatment and the fact that complications can present weeks to years after instillation can make diagnosis quite challenging.¹⁴ Even if clinical suspicion is high, it may be difficult to definitively identify BCG as the underlying etiology because acid fast staining, culture, and even PCR can lead to falsely negative results.^14,15 For this reason, biopsy and tissue culture are recommended to demonstrate granuloma formation and identify the presence of M. bovis.

Although no prospective studies have been conducted to assess the optimal therapy for BCG infection, opinion-based recommendations include cessation of BCG treatment, initiation of at least 3 tuberculostatic agents, and treatment for 3-12 months depending on the severity of the complications.^11,14 M. bovis is susceptible to isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol as well as to fluoroquinolones, clarithromycin, aminoglycosides, and doxycycline; however, this organism is highly resistant to pyrazinamide due to single-point mutation.^11,16Interestingly, imipenem is used to treat other nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases, such as those caused by M. abscessus, thereby raising the possibility that the patient’s exposure to meropenem during treatment for his prior sepsis may have partially treated an acute infection due to M. bovis.

Although treatment with steroids is a standard approach for management of hypercalcemia in other granulomatous disorders and leads to rapid reduction in circulating levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D and serum calcium., specific evidence has not been established to support its efficacy and effectiveness in treating hypercalcemia and other complications due to M. bovis.¹⁷ Nevertheless, some experts recommend the use of steroids in conjunction with a multidrug tuberculostatic regimen in cases of septicemia and multiorgan failure due to M. bovis.^12,14,18-20

In summary, this case illustrates the importance of making room in differential diagnosis to include iatrogenic complications. That is, when faced with an unclear diagnosis, the provider should consider common and uncommon immediate and delayed side effects of prior therapies.

Teaching Points

• Complications of intravesical BCG treatment include manifestations of granulomatous diseases, such as hypercalcemia.
• When generating a differential diagnosis, medical providers should not only consider the possibility of a new disease process or the progression of a known comorbidity but also the potential of an adverse effect related to prior treatments.
• Medical providers should be wary of accepting previously made diagnoses, particularly when key pieces of objective data are lacking.

Disclosures

 The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest that might bias this work.

A 70-year-old man presented to the emergency department with 5 days of decreased appetite, frequent urination, tremors, and memory difficulties. He also reported 9 months of malaise, generalized weakness, and weight loss. There was no history of fever, chills, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, pain, or focal neurologic complaints.

This patient exemplifies a common clinical challenge: an older adult with several possibly unrelated concerns. In many patients, a new presentation is usually either a different manifestation of a known condition (eg, a complication of an established malignancy) or the emergence of something they are at risk for based on health behavior or other characteristics (eg, lung cancer in a smoker). The diagnostic process in older adults can be complicated because many have, or are at risk for, multiple chronic conditions.

After reviewing the timeline of symptoms, the presence of 9 months of symptoms suggests a chronic and progressive underlying process, perhaps with subsequent superimposition of an acute problem. Although it is not certain whether chronic and acute symptoms are caused by the same process, this assumption is reasonable. The superimposition of acute symptoms on a chronic process may represent progression of the underlying condition or an acute complication of the underlying disease. However, the patient’s chronic symptoms of malaise, weakness, and weight loss are nonspecific.

Although malignancy is a consideration given the age of the patient and time course of symptoms, attributing the symptoms to a specific pattern of disease or building a cogent differential diagnosis is difficult until additional information is obtained. One strategy is to try to localize the findings to 1 or more organ systems; for example, given that tremors and memory difficulties localize to the central nervous system, neurodegenerative disorders, such as “Parkinson plus” syndromes, and cerebellar disease are possible. However, this tactic still leaves a relatively broad set of symptoms without an immediate and clear unifying cause.

The patient’s medical history included hyperlipidemia, peripheral neuropathy, prostate cancer, and papillary bladder cancer. The patient was admitted to the hospital 4 months earlier for severe sepsis presumed secondary to a urinary tract infection, although bacterial cultures were sterile. His social history was notable for a 50 pack-year smoking history. Outpatient medications included alfuzosin, gabapentin, simvastatin, hydrocodone, and cholecalciferol. He used a Bright Light Therapy lamp for 1 hour per week and occasionally used calcium carbonate for indigestion. The patient’s sister had a history of throat cancer.

On examination, the patient was detected with blood pressure of 104/56 mm Hg, pulse of 85 beats per minute, temperature of 98.2 °F, oxygen saturation of 97% on ambient air, and body mass index of 18 kg/m². The patient appeared frail with mildly decreased strength in the upper and lower extremities bilaterally. The remainder of the physical examination was normal. Reflexes were symmetric, no tremors or rigidity was noted, sensation was intact to light touch, and the response to the Romberg maneuver was normal.

Past medical history is the cornerstone of the diagnostic process. The history of 2 different malignancies is the most striking element in this case. Papillary bladder cancer is usually a local process, but additional information is needed regarding its stage and previous treatment, including whether or not the patient received Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) vaccine, which can rarely be associated with infectious and inflammatory complications. Metastatic prostate cancer could certainly account for his symptomatology, and bladder outlet obstruction could explain the history of urinary frequency and probable urosepsis. His medication list suggested no obvious causes to explain his presentation, except that cholecalciferol and calcium carbonate, which when taken in excess, can cause hypercalcemia. This finding is of particular importance given that many of the patient’s symptoms, including polyuria, malaise, weakness, tremor, memory difficulties, anorexia, acute kidney injury and (indirectly) hypotension and weight loss, are also seen in patients with hypercalcemia. The relatively normal result of the neurologic examination decreases the probability of a primary neurologic disorder and increases the likelihood that his neurologic symptoms are due to a global systemic process. The relative hypotension and weight loss similarly support the possibility that the patient is experiencing a chronic and progressive process.

The differential diagnosis remains broad. An underlying malignancy would explain the chronic progressive course, and superimposed hypercalcemia would explain the acute symptoms of polyuria, tremor, and memory changes. Endocrinopathies including hyperthyroidism or adrenal insufficiency are other possibilities. A chronic progressive infection, such as tuberculosis, is possible, although no epidemiologic factors that increase his risk for this disease are present.

The patient had serum calcium of 14.5 mg/dL, ionized calcium of 3.46 mEq/L, albumin of 3.6 g/dL, BUN of 62 mg/dL, and creatinine of 3.9 mg/dL (all values were normal 3 months prior). His electrolytes and liver function were otherwise normal. Moreover, he had hemoglobin level of 10.5 mg/dL, white blood cell count of 4.8 × 10⁹cells/L, and platelet count of 203 × 10⁹ cells/L.

Until this point, only nonspecific findings were identified, leading to a broad differential diagnosis with little specificity. However, laboratory examinations confirm the suspected diagnosis of hypercalcemia, provide an opportunity to explain the patient’s symptoms, and offer a “lens” to narrow the differential diagnosis and guide the diagnostic evaluation. Hypercalcemia is most commonly secondary to primary hyperparathyroidism or malignancy. Primary hyperparathyroidism is unlikely in this patient given the relatively acute onset of symptoms. The degree of hypercalcemia is also atypical for primary hyperparathyroidism because it rarely exceeds 13 mg/dL, although the use of concurrent vitamin D and calcium supplementation could explain the high calcium level. Malignancy seems more likely given the degree of hypercalcemia in the setting of weight loss, tobacco use, and history of malignancy. Malignancy may cause hypercalcemia through multiple disparate mechanisms, including development of osteolytic bone metastases, elaboration of parathyroid hormone-related Peptide (PTHrP), increased production of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or, very rarely, ectopic production of parathyroid hormone (PTH). However, none of these mechanisms are particularly common in bladder or prostate cancer, which are the known malignancies in the patient. Other less likely and less common causes of hypercalcemia are also possible given the clinical clues, including vitamin D toxicity and milk alkali syndrome (vitamin D and calcium carbonate supplementation), multiple endocrine neoplasia (a sister with “throat cancer”), and granulomatous disease (weight loss). At this point, further laboratory evaluations would be helpful, specifically determination of PTH and PTHrP levels and serum and urine protein electrophoresis.

With respect to the patient’s past medical history, his Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer was diagnosed 12 years prior to admission and treated with external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. His bladder cancer was diagnosed 3 years before admission and treated with tumor resection followed by 2 rounds of intravesical BCG (iBCG), 1 round of mitomycin C, and 2 additional rounds of iBCG over the course of treatment spanning 2 years and 6 months. The treatment was complicated by urethral strictures requiring dilation, ureteral outlet obstruction requiring left ureteral stent placement, and multiple urinary tract infections.

The patient’s last round of iBCG was delivered 6 months prior to his current presentation. The patient’s hospital admission 4 months earlier for severe sepsis was presumed secondary to a urologic source considering that significant pyuria was noted on urinalysis and he was treated with meropenem, although bacterial cultures of blood and urine were sterile. From the time of discharge until his current presentation, he experienced progressive weakness and an approximately 50 lb weight loss.

The prior cancers and associated treatments of the patient may be involved in his current presentation. The simplest explanation would be metastatic disease with resultant hypercalcemia, which is atypical of either prostate or bladder cancer. The history of genitourinary surgery could predispose the patient to a chronic infection of the urinary tract with indolent organisms, such as a fungus, especially given the prior sepsis without clear etiology. However, the history would not explain the presence of hypercalcemia. Tuberculosis must thus be considered given the weight loss, hypercalcemia, and “sterile pyuria” of the patient. A more intriguing possibility is whether or not the patient’s constellation of signs and symptoms might be a late effect of iBCG. Intravesical BCG for treatment of localized bladder cancer is occasionally associated with complications. BCG is a modified live form of Mycobacterium bovis which invokes an intense inflammatory reaction when instilled into the bladder. These complications include disseminated infection and local complications, such as genitourinary infections. BCG infection might also explain the severe sepsis of unclear etiology that the patient had experienced 4 months earlier. Most interestingly, hypercalcemia has been described in the setting of BCG infection. Diagnosis of disseminated BCG is best made via culture or polymerase chain reaction testing for M. bovis at potential sites of involvement, including the blood. Nevertheless, a common presentation of a common disorder is still most likely. If his current presentation is distilled down to a chronic presentation of weakness, weight loss, and hypercalcemia in the setting of known malignancy, then the underlying malignancy seems to offer the most unifying explanation. Given that neither of his known cancers are commonly associated with hypercalcemia, the possibility that he has developed a third malignancy must also be considered.

In the hospital, the patient received intravenous normal saline, furosemide, and pamidronate. Evaluation for hypercalcemia revealed appropriately suppressed PTH (8 mg/dL), and normal levels of PTHrP (<.74 pmol/L), prostate specific antigen (<.01 ng/mL), and morning cortisol (16.7 mcg/dL). Serum and urine electrophoresis did not show evidence for monoclonal gammopathy, and the 25-hydroxy vitamin D level (39.5 ng/mL) was within the normal limits (normal range 20.1-50.0 ng/mL). The patient had elevated levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D (122 ng/mL, normal range 19.9–79.3 pg/mL), lactate dehydrogenase (196 units/L, normal 50–150 units/L), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (153 units/L, normal 14–82 units/L).

The suppressed PTH level makes primary hyperparathyroidism unlikely, the low PTHrP level decreases the probability of a paraneoplastic process, and the normal protein electrophoresis makes multiple myeloma unlikely. The presence of a significantly elevated 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D level with a normal 25-hydroxy vitamin D level indicates extrarenal conversion of 25-hydroxy vitamin D by 1-hydroxylase as the etiology of hypercalcemia. Increased activity of 1-hydroxylase is the most consistent with granulomatous diseases, including sarcoidosis, and, with the exception of lymphoma, would not be expected in hypercalcemia malignancy. This mechanism is also associated with tuberculosis, disseminated fungal infections, such as coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis, and as a late effect of BCG treatment, regardless of whether disseminated infection or granulomatous immune response. Elevated lactate dehydrogenase and angiotensin-converting enzyme levels may also be noted in many of these disorders.

Lymphoma would appear to be the most likely diagnosis as it accounts for most of the clinical findings observed in the patient and is a fairly common disorder. Sarcoidosis is also reasonably common and would explain the laboratory abnormalities but is not usually associated with weight loss and frailty. Disseminated infections, such as tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, and coccidioidomycosis, are all possible, but the patient lacks key risk factors for these infections. A complication of iBCG is the most intriguing possibility and could account for many of the patient’s clinical findings, including the septic episode, which is an event not clearly accounted for by the other diagnostic possibilities. However, disseminated BCG and hypersensitivity reactions to BCG leading to hypercalcemia are rare. When asked to choose between the most interesting possibility and the most common possibility, the most common will usually be the best (and safest) bet. Nonetheless, the effects of prior BCG treatment, including disseminated infection or diffuse immune-mediated granulomatous disease, would be near the top of the differential diagnosis in this case.

The bone survey was normal, the renal ultrasound examination showed nodular wall thickening of the bladder with areas of calcification, and the CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed an area of calcification in the superior portion of the bladder but no evidence of lymphadenopathy or masses to suggest lymphoma. Aerobic and anaerobic blood and urine cultures were sterile. The patient was discharged 12 days after admission with plans for further outpatient diagnostic evaluation. At this time, his serum calcium had stabilized at 10.5 mg/dL with pamidronate, diuretics, and aggressive oral hydration.

Hypercalcemia is a common finding in both hospital and ambulatory settings. The classic symptoms associated with hypercalcemia are aptly summarized with the mnemonic “bones, stones, abdominal groans, and psychiatric overtones” (to represent the associated skeletal involvement, renal disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and effects on the nervous system). However, the severity and type of symptoms vary depending on the degree of hypercalcemia, acuity of onset, and underlying etiology. The vast majority (90%) of hypercalcemia cases are due to primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy.³ Measuring the PTH level is a key step in the diagnostic evaluation process. An isolated elevation of PTH confirms the presence of primary or possibly tertiary hyperparathyroidism. Low PTH concentrations (<20 pg/mL) occur in the settings of PTHrP or vitamin-D-mediated hypercalcemia such as hypervitaminosis D, malignancy, or granulomatous disease.

Elevated PTHrP occurs most commonly in squamous cell, renal, bladder, and ovarian carcinomas.^3,4 Elevated levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D can occur with excessive consumption of vitamin D-containing products and some herbal supplements. In this case, neither PTHrP nor 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was elevated, leading to an exhaustive search for other causes. Although iBCG treatment is a rare cause of hypercalcemia, 2 previous reports indicated the presence of hypercalcemia secondary to granuloma formation in treated patients.^5,6

The finding of an elevated 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D level was unexpected. As the discussant mentioned, this finding is associated with lymphoma and with granulomatous disorders that were not initially strong diagnostic considerations in the patient. A variety of granulomatous diseases can cause hypercalcemia. Sarcoidosis and tuberculosis are the most common, but berylliosis, fungal infections, Crohn’s disease, silicone exposure, and granulomatosis with polyangiitis may also be associated with hypercalcemia.⁷ The mechanism for hypercalcemia in these situations is increased intestinal calcium absorption mediated by inappropriately increased, PTH-independent, extrarenal calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D) production. Activated monocytes upregulate 25(OH)D-alpha-hydroxylase, converting 25-hydroxy vitamin D to 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D. Concurrently, the elevated levels of gamma-interferon render macrophages resistant to the normal regulatory feedback mechanisms, thereby promoting the production and inhibiting the degradation of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D.⁸

The tuberculosis vaccine BCG is an attenuated form of M. bovis and was originally developed by Albert Calmette and Camille Guérin at the Pasteur Institute in Paris in the early 20^th century. In addition to its use as a vaccine against tuberculosis, BCG can protect against other mycobacterial infections, help treat atopic conditions via stimulation of the Th1 cellular immune response, and has been used as an antineoplastic agent. To date, BCG remains the most effective agent available for intravesical treatment of superficial bladder cancer.^9,10 Although iBCG therapy is considered relatively safe and well-tolerated, rare complications do occur. Localized symptoms (bladder irritation, hematuria) and/or flu-like symptoms are common immediately after instillation and thought to be related to the cellular immune response and inflammatory cascade triggered by mycobacterial antigens.¹¹ Other adverse effects, such as infectious and noninfectious complications, may occur months to years after treatment with BCG, and the associated symptoms can be quite nonspecific. Infectious complications include mycobacterial prostatitis, orchiepididymitis, balantitis, pneumonia, hepatitis, nephritis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, infected orthopedic and vascular prostheses, endocarditis, and bacteremia. Traumatic catheterization is the most common risk factor for infection with BCG.^11-13 Noninfectious complications include reactive arthritis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), and sterile granulomatous infiltration of solid organs.

The protean and nonspecific nature of the adverse effects of iBCG treatment and the fact that complications can present weeks to years after instillation can make diagnosis quite challenging.¹⁴ Even if clinical suspicion is high, it may be difficult to definitively identify BCG as the underlying etiology because acid fast staining, culture, and even PCR can lead to falsely negative results.^14,15 For this reason, biopsy and tissue culture are recommended to demonstrate granuloma formation and identify the presence of M. bovis.

Although no prospective studies have been conducted to assess the optimal therapy for BCG infection, opinion-based recommendations include cessation of BCG treatment, initiation of at least 3 tuberculostatic agents, and treatment for 3-12 months depending on the severity of the complications.^11,14 M. bovis is susceptible to isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol as well as to fluoroquinolones, clarithromycin, aminoglycosides, and doxycycline; however, this organism is highly resistant to pyrazinamide due to single-point mutation.^11,16Interestingly, imipenem is used to treat other nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases, such as those caused by M. abscessus, thereby raising the possibility that the patient’s exposure to meropenem during treatment for his prior sepsis may have partially treated an acute infection due to M. bovis.

Although treatment with steroids is a standard approach for management of hypercalcemia in other granulomatous disorders and leads to rapid reduction in circulating levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D and serum calcium., specific evidence has not been established to support its efficacy and effectiveness in treating hypercalcemia and other complications due to M. bovis.¹⁷ Nevertheless, some experts recommend the use of steroids in conjunction with a multidrug tuberculostatic regimen in cases of septicemia and multiorgan failure due to M. bovis.^12,14,18-20

In summary, this case illustrates the importance of making room in differential diagnosis to include iatrogenic complications. That is, when faced with an unclear diagnosis, the provider should consider common and uncommon immediate and delayed side effects of prior therapies.

Teaching Points

• Complications of intravesical BCG treatment include manifestations of granulomatous diseases, such as hypercalcemia.
• When generating a differential diagnosis, medical providers should not only consider the possibility of a new disease process or the progression of a known comorbidity but also the potential of an adverse effect related to prior treatments.
• Medical providers should be wary of accepting previously made diagnoses, particularly when key pieces of objective data are lacking.

Disclosures

 The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest that might bias this work.

A 70-year-old man presented to the emergency department with 5 days of decreased appetite, frequent urination, tremors, and memory difficulties. He also reported 9 months of malaise, generalized weakness, and weight loss. There was no history of fever, chills, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, pain, or focal neurologic complaints.

This patient exemplifies a common clinical challenge: an older adult with several possibly unrelated concerns. In many patients, a new presentation is usually either a different manifestation of a known condition (eg, a complication of an established malignancy) or the emergence of something they are at risk for based on health behavior or other characteristics (eg, lung cancer in a smoker). The diagnostic process in older adults can be complicated because many have, or are at risk for, multiple chronic conditions.

After reviewing the timeline of symptoms, the presence of 9 months of symptoms suggests a chronic and progressive underlying process, perhaps with subsequent superimposition of an acute problem. Although it is not certain whether chronic and acute symptoms are caused by the same process, this assumption is reasonable. The superimposition of acute symptoms on a chronic process may represent progression of the underlying condition or an acute complication of the underlying disease. However, the patient’s chronic symptoms of malaise, weakness, and weight loss are nonspecific.

Although malignancy is a consideration given the age of the patient and time course of symptoms, attributing the symptoms to a specific pattern of disease or building a cogent differential diagnosis is difficult until additional information is obtained. One strategy is to try to localize the findings to 1 or more organ systems; for example, given that tremors and memory difficulties localize to the central nervous system, neurodegenerative disorders, such as “Parkinson plus” syndromes, and cerebellar disease are possible. However, this tactic still leaves a relatively broad set of symptoms without an immediate and clear unifying cause.

The patient’s medical history included hyperlipidemia, peripheral neuropathy, prostate cancer, and papillary bladder cancer. The patient was admitted to the hospital 4 months earlier for severe sepsis presumed secondary to a urinary tract infection, although bacterial cultures were sterile. His social history was notable for a 50 pack-year smoking history. Outpatient medications included alfuzosin, gabapentin, simvastatin, hydrocodone, and cholecalciferol. He used a Bright Light Therapy lamp for 1 hour per week and occasionally used calcium carbonate for indigestion. The patient’s sister had a history of throat cancer.

On examination, the patient was detected with blood pressure of 104/56 mm Hg, pulse of 85 beats per minute, temperature of 98.2 °F, oxygen saturation of 97% on ambient air, and body mass index of 18 kg/m². The patient appeared frail with mildly decreased strength in the upper and lower extremities bilaterally. The remainder of the physical examination was normal. Reflexes were symmetric, no tremors or rigidity was noted, sensation was intact to light touch, and the response to the Romberg maneuver was normal.

Past medical history is the cornerstone of the diagnostic process. The history of 2 different malignancies is the most striking element in this case. Papillary bladder cancer is usually a local process, but additional information is needed regarding its stage and previous treatment, including whether or not the patient received Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) vaccine, which can rarely be associated with infectious and inflammatory complications. Metastatic prostate cancer could certainly account for his symptomatology, and bladder outlet obstruction could explain the history of urinary frequency and probable urosepsis. His medication list suggested no obvious causes to explain his presentation, except that cholecalciferol and calcium carbonate, which when taken in excess, can cause hypercalcemia. This finding is of particular importance given that many of the patient’s symptoms, including polyuria, malaise, weakness, tremor, memory difficulties, anorexia, acute kidney injury and (indirectly) hypotension and weight loss, are also seen in patients with hypercalcemia. The relatively normal result of the neurologic examination decreases the probability of a primary neurologic disorder and increases the likelihood that his neurologic symptoms are due to a global systemic process. The relative hypotension and weight loss similarly support the possibility that the patient is experiencing a chronic and progressive process.

The differential diagnosis remains broad. An underlying malignancy would explain the chronic progressive course, and superimposed hypercalcemia would explain the acute symptoms of polyuria, tremor, and memory changes. Endocrinopathies including hyperthyroidism or adrenal insufficiency are other possibilities. A chronic progressive infection, such as tuberculosis, is possible, although no epidemiologic factors that increase his risk for this disease are present.

The patient had serum calcium of 14.5 mg/dL, ionized calcium of 3.46 mEq/L, albumin of 3.6 g/dL, BUN of 62 mg/dL, and creatinine of 3.9 mg/dL (all values were normal 3 months prior). His electrolytes and liver function were otherwise normal. Moreover, he had hemoglobin level of 10.5 mg/dL, white blood cell count of 4.8 × 10⁹cells/L, and platelet count of 203 × 10⁹ cells/L.

Until this point, only nonspecific findings were identified, leading to a broad differential diagnosis with little specificity. However, laboratory examinations confirm the suspected diagnosis of hypercalcemia, provide an opportunity to explain the patient’s symptoms, and offer a “lens” to narrow the differential diagnosis and guide the diagnostic evaluation. Hypercalcemia is most commonly secondary to primary hyperparathyroidism or malignancy. Primary hyperparathyroidism is unlikely in this patient given the relatively acute onset of symptoms. The degree of hypercalcemia is also atypical for primary hyperparathyroidism because it rarely exceeds 13 mg/dL, although the use of concurrent vitamin D and calcium supplementation could explain the high calcium level. Malignancy seems more likely given the degree of hypercalcemia in the setting of weight loss, tobacco use, and history of malignancy. Malignancy may cause hypercalcemia through multiple disparate mechanisms, including development of osteolytic bone metastases, elaboration of parathyroid hormone-related Peptide (PTHrP), increased production of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or, very rarely, ectopic production of parathyroid hormone (PTH). However, none of these mechanisms are particularly common in bladder or prostate cancer, which are the known malignancies in the patient. Other less likely and less common causes of hypercalcemia are also possible given the clinical clues, including vitamin D toxicity and milk alkali syndrome (vitamin D and calcium carbonate supplementation), multiple endocrine neoplasia (a sister with “throat cancer”), and granulomatous disease (weight loss). At this point, further laboratory evaluations would be helpful, specifically determination of PTH and PTHrP levels and serum and urine protein electrophoresis.

With respect to the patient’s past medical history, his Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer was diagnosed 12 years prior to admission and treated with external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. His bladder cancer was diagnosed 3 years before admission and treated with tumor resection followed by 2 rounds of intravesical BCG (iBCG), 1 round of mitomycin C, and 2 additional rounds of iBCG over the course of treatment spanning 2 years and 6 months. The treatment was complicated by urethral strictures requiring dilation, ureteral outlet obstruction requiring left ureteral stent placement, and multiple urinary tract infections.

The patient’s last round of iBCG was delivered 6 months prior to his current presentation. The patient’s hospital admission 4 months earlier for severe sepsis was presumed secondary to a urologic source considering that significant pyuria was noted on urinalysis and he was treated with meropenem, although bacterial cultures of blood and urine were sterile. From the time of discharge until his current presentation, he experienced progressive weakness and an approximately 50 lb weight loss.

The prior cancers and associated treatments of the patient may be involved in his current presentation. The simplest explanation would be metastatic disease with resultant hypercalcemia, which is atypical of either prostate or bladder cancer. The history of genitourinary surgery could predispose the patient to a chronic infection of the urinary tract with indolent organisms, such as a fungus, especially given the prior sepsis without clear etiology. However, the history would not explain the presence of hypercalcemia. Tuberculosis must thus be considered given the weight loss, hypercalcemia, and “sterile pyuria” of the patient. A more intriguing possibility is whether or not the patient’s constellation of signs and symptoms might be a late effect of iBCG. Intravesical BCG for treatment of localized bladder cancer is occasionally associated with complications. BCG is a modified live form of Mycobacterium bovis which invokes an intense inflammatory reaction when instilled into the bladder. These complications include disseminated infection and local complications, such as genitourinary infections. BCG infection might also explain the severe sepsis of unclear etiology that the patient had experienced 4 months earlier. Most interestingly, hypercalcemia has been described in the setting of BCG infection. Diagnosis of disseminated BCG is best made via culture or polymerase chain reaction testing for M. bovis at potential sites of involvement, including the blood. Nevertheless, a common presentation of a common disorder is still most likely. If his current presentation is distilled down to a chronic presentation of weakness, weight loss, and hypercalcemia in the setting of known malignancy, then the underlying malignancy seems to offer the most unifying explanation. Given that neither of his known cancers are commonly associated with hypercalcemia, the possibility that he has developed a third malignancy must also be considered.

In the hospital, the patient received intravenous normal saline, furosemide, and pamidronate. Evaluation for hypercalcemia revealed appropriately suppressed PTH (8 mg/dL), and normal levels of PTHrP (<.74 pmol/L), prostate specific antigen (<.01 ng/mL), and morning cortisol (16.7 mcg/dL). Serum and urine electrophoresis did not show evidence for monoclonal gammopathy, and the 25-hydroxy vitamin D level (39.5 ng/mL) was within the normal limits (normal range 20.1-50.0 ng/mL). The patient had elevated levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D (122 ng/mL, normal range 19.9–79.3 pg/mL), lactate dehydrogenase (196 units/L, normal 50–150 units/L), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (153 units/L, normal 14–82 units/L).

The suppressed PTH level makes primary hyperparathyroidism unlikely, the low PTHrP level decreases the probability of a paraneoplastic process, and the normal protein electrophoresis makes multiple myeloma unlikely. The presence of a significantly elevated 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D level with a normal 25-hydroxy vitamin D level indicates extrarenal conversion of 25-hydroxy vitamin D by 1-hydroxylase as the etiology of hypercalcemia. Increased activity of 1-hydroxylase is the most consistent with granulomatous diseases, including sarcoidosis, and, with the exception of lymphoma, would not be expected in hypercalcemia malignancy. This mechanism is also associated with tuberculosis, disseminated fungal infections, such as coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis, and as a late effect of BCG treatment, regardless of whether disseminated infection or granulomatous immune response. Elevated lactate dehydrogenase and angiotensin-converting enzyme levels may also be noted in many of these disorders.

Lymphoma would appear to be the most likely diagnosis as it accounts for most of the clinical findings observed in the patient and is a fairly common disorder. Sarcoidosis is also reasonably common and would explain the laboratory abnormalities but is not usually associated with weight loss and frailty. Disseminated infections, such as tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, and coccidioidomycosis, are all possible, but the patient lacks key risk factors for these infections. A complication of iBCG is the most intriguing possibility and could account for many of the patient’s clinical findings, including the septic episode, which is an event not clearly accounted for by the other diagnostic possibilities. However, disseminated BCG and hypersensitivity reactions to BCG leading to hypercalcemia are rare. When asked to choose between the most interesting possibility and the most common possibility, the most common will usually be the best (and safest) bet. Nonetheless, the effects of prior BCG treatment, including disseminated infection or diffuse immune-mediated granulomatous disease, would be near the top of the differential diagnosis in this case.

The bone survey was normal, the renal ultrasound examination showed nodular wall thickening of the bladder with areas of calcification, and the CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed an area of calcification in the superior portion of the bladder but no evidence of lymphadenopathy or masses to suggest lymphoma. Aerobic and anaerobic blood and urine cultures were sterile. The patient was discharged 12 days after admission with plans for further outpatient diagnostic evaluation. At this time, his serum calcium had stabilized at 10.5 mg/dL with pamidronate, diuretics, and aggressive oral hydration.

Hypercalcemia is a common finding in both hospital and ambulatory settings. The classic symptoms associated with hypercalcemia are aptly summarized with the mnemonic “bones, stones, abdominal groans, and psychiatric overtones” (to represent the associated skeletal involvement, renal disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and effects on the nervous system). However, the severity and type of symptoms vary depending on the degree of hypercalcemia, acuity of onset, and underlying etiology. The vast majority (90%) of hypercalcemia cases are due to primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy.³ Measuring the PTH level is a key step in the diagnostic evaluation process. An isolated elevation of PTH confirms the presence of primary or possibly tertiary hyperparathyroidism. Low PTH concentrations (<20 pg/mL) occur in the settings of PTHrP or vitamin-D-mediated hypercalcemia such as hypervitaminosis D, malignancy, or granulomatous disease.

Elevated PTHrP occurs most commonly in squamous cell, renal, bladder, and ovarian carcinomas.^3,4 Elevated levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D can occur with excessive consumption of vitamin D-containing products and some herbal supplements. In this case, neither PTHrP nor 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was elevated, leading to an exhaustive search for other causes. Although iBCG treatment is a rare cause of hypercalcemia, 2 previous reports indicated the presence of hypercalcemia secondary to granuloma formation in treated patients.^5,6

The finding of an elevated 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D level was unexpected. As the discussant mentioned, this finding is associated with lymphoma and with granulomatous disorders that were not initially strong diagnostic considerations in the patient. A variety of granulomatous diseases can cause hypercalcemia. Sarcoidosis and tuberculosis are the most common, but berylliosis, fungal infections, Crohn’s disease, silicone exposure, and granulomatosis with polyangiitis may also be associated with hypercalcemia.⁷ The mechanism for hypercalcemia in these situations is increased intestinal calcium absorption mediated by inappropriately increased, PTH-independent, extrarenal calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D) production. Activated monocytes upregulate 25(OH)D-alpha-hydroxylase, converting 25-hydroxy vitamin D to 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D. Concurrently, the elevated levels of gamma-interferon render macrophages resistant to the normal regulatory feedback mechanisms, thereby promoting the production and inhibiting the degradation of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D.⁸

The tuberculosis vaccine BCG is an attenuated form of M. bovis and was originally developed by Albert Calmette and Camille Guérin at the Pasteur Institute in Paris in the early 20^th century. In addition to its use as a vaccine against tuberculosis, BCG can protect against other mycobacterial infections, help treat atopic conditions via stimulation of the Th1 cellular immune response, and has been used as an antineoplastic agent. To date, BCG remains the most effective agent available for intravesical treatment of superficial bladder cancer.^9,10 Although iBCG therapy is considered relatively safe and well-tolerated, rare complications do occur. Localized symptoms (bladder irritation, hematuria) and/or flu-like symptoms are common immediately after instillation and thought to be related to the cellular immune response and inflammatory cascade triggered by mycobacterial antigens.¹¹ Other adverse effects, such as infectious and noninfectious complications, may occur months to years after treatment with BCG, and the associated symptoms can be quite nonspecific. Infectious complications include mycobacterial prostatitis, orchiepididymitis, balantitis, pneumonia, hepatitis, nephritis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, infected orthopedic and vascular prostheses, endocarditis, and bacteremia. Traumatic catheterization is the most common risk factor for infection with BCG.^11-13 Noninfectious complications include reactive arthritis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), and sterile granulomatous infiltration of solid organs.

The protean and nonspecific nature of the adverse effects of iBCG treatment and the fact that complications can present weeks to years after instillation can make diagnosis quite challenging.¹⁴ Even if clinical suspicion is high, it may be difficult to definitively identify BCG as the underlying etiology because acid fast staining, culture, and even PCR can lead to falsely negative results.^14,15 For this reason, biopsy and tissue culture are recommended to demonstrate granuloma formation and identify the presence of M. bovis.

Although no prospective studies have been conducted to assess the optimal therapy for BCG infection, opinion-based recommendations include cessation of BCG treatment, initiation of at least 3 tuberculostatic agents, and treatment for 3-12 months depending on the severity of the complications.^11,14 M. bovis is susceptible to isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol as well as to fluoroquinolones, clarithromycin, aminoglycosides, and doxycycline; however, this organism is highly resistant to pyrazinamide due to single-point mutation.^11,16Interestingly, imipenem is used to treat other nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases, such as those caused by M. abscessus, thereby raising the possibility that the patient’s exposure to meropenem during treatment for his prior sepsis may have partially treated an acute infection due to M. bovis.

Although treatment with steroids is a standard approach for management of hypercalcemia in other granulomatous disorders and leads to rapid reduction in circulating levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D and serum calcium., specific evidence has not been established to support its efficacy and effectiveness in treating hypercalcemia and other complications due to M. bovis.¹⁷ Nevertheless, some experts recommend the use of steroids in conjunction with a multidrug tuberculostatic regimen in cases of septicemia and multiorgan failure due to M. bovis.^12,14,18-20

In summary, this case illustrates the importance of making room in differential diagnosis to include iatrogenic complications. That is, when faced with an unclear diagnosis, the provider should consider common and uncommon immediate and delayed side effects of prior therapies.

Teaching Points

• Complications of intravesical BCG treatment include manifestations of granulomatous diseases, such as hypercalcemia.
• When generating a differential diagnosis, medical providers should not only consider the possibility of a new disease process or the progression of a known comorbidity but also the potential of an adverse effect related to prior treatments.
• Medical providers should be wary of accepting previously made diagnoses, particularly when key pieces of objective data are lacking.

Disclosures

 The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest that might bias this work.

Royer and colleagues¹ have performed a meta-analysis comparing shorter versus longer courses of antibiotics for treating infections in hospitalized patients. They conclude that shorter courses are safe. However, the authors do not address a flaw in the analysis; they included studies in which treatment with azithromycin was considered a short antibiotic course relative to treatment with another antibiotic. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that has a relatively long terminal serum half-life, which has been reported to be 35-96 hours.^2-4 Moreover, the half-life of azithromycin in lung tissue can be as long as 132 hours,⁴ which is important because tissue concentrations are thought to be more indicative of the clinical efficacy of macrolides.⁵ In 4 of 19 studies in the meta-analysis,¹ azithromycin was used as a short course for the treatment of pneumonia and compared with longer courses of antibiotics with a much shorter half-life. This implies that in these studies, the duration of the effective antibiotic tissue concentration in the short arms was probably not shorter than in the comparator arms. It could even be longer due to azithromycin’s favorable pharmacokinetics. In our view, these studies have unfairly contributed to the clinical efficacy of short courses, thereby threatening the validity of the overall conclusions. We think that effective antibiotic blood/tissue levels determine the clinical outcome, not just shorter or longer antibiotic courses.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.

Royer and colleagues¹ have performed a meta-analysis comparing shorter versus longer courses of antibiotics for treating infections in hospitalized patients. They conclude that shorter courses are safe. However, the authors do not address a flaw in the analysis; they included studies in which treatment with azithromycin was considered a short antibiotic course relative to treatment with another antibiotic. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that has a relatively long terminal serum half-life, which has been reported to be 35-96 hours.^2-4 Moreover, the half-life of azithromycin in lung tissue can be as long as 132 hours,⁴ which is important because tissue concentrations are thought to be more indicative of the clinical efficacy of macrolides.⁵ In 4 of 19 studies in the meta-analysis,¹ azithromycin was used as a short course for the treatment of pneumonia and compared with longer courses of antibiotics with a much shorter half-life. This implies that in these studies, the duration of the effective antibiotic tissue concentration in the short arms was probably not shorter than in the comparator arms. It could even be longer due to azithromycin’s favorable pharmacokinetics. In our view, these studies have unfairly contributed to the clinical efficacy of short courses, thereby threatening the validity of the overall conclusions. We think that effective antibiotic blood/tissue levels determine the clinical outcome, not just shorter or longer antibiotic courses.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.

Royer and colleagues¹ have performed a meta-analysis comparing shorter versus longer courses of antibiotics for treating infections in hospitalized patients. They conclude that shorter courses are safe. However, the authors do not address a flaw in the analysis; they included studies in which treatment with azithromycin was considered a short antibiotic course relative to treatment with another antibiotic. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that has a relatively long terminal serum half-life, which has been reported to be 35-96 hours.^2-4 Moreover, the half-life of azithromycin in lung tissue can be as long as 132 hours,⁴ which is important because tissue concentrations are thought to be more indicative of the clinical efficacy of macrolides.⁵ In 4 of 19 studies in the meta-analysis,¹ azithromycin was used as a short course for the treatment of pneumonia and compared with longer courses of antibiotics with a much shorter half-life. This implies that in these studies, the duration of the effective antibiotic tissue concentration in the short arms was probably not shorter than in the comparator arms. It could even be longer due to azithromycin’s favorable pharmacokinetics. In our view, these studies have unfairly contributed to the clinical efficacy of short courses, thereby threatening the validity of the overall conclusions. We think that effective antibiotic blood/tissue levels determine the clinical outcome, not just shorter or longer antibiotic courses.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.

We appreciate the interest in our review of antibiotic duration in hospitalized patients. Drs. Sikkens and van Agtmael comment that drug pharmacokinetics can alter true treatment duration.^1,2 Specifically, azithromycin has a long half-life in tissues.³ We did not consider pharmacokinetics in our prespecified protocol for study inclusion, nor require that studies compare the same drug between treatment groups. This is consistent with a systematic review of antibiotic duration in community-acquired pneumonia, which included 3 of the 4 studies comparing short-course azithromycin to a longer course of another antibiotic.⁴ Similarly, in a recent pilot study of antibiotic duration in bloodstream infections, only treatment duration was prespecified.⁵ We agree that the differing pharmacokinetics between drugs is a limitation to our findings.

To assess whether the inclusion of studies using short-course azithromycin biased our conclusions, we performed an additional meta-analysis for clinical efficacy excluding the 4 studies that compared azithromycin with another drug. This subgroup included 9 trials comprising 1270 patients. The overall risk difference was 0.3% (95% CI −2.7%, 3.3%), consistent with the primary findings that short-course antibiotic treatment is non-inferior to long-course antibiotic treatment. None of these 4 studies examined mortality; thus, the meta-analyses for short-term and long-term mortality are unaffected.

Disclosures

Dr. Royer holds stock in Pfizer. The authors have no other potential financial conflicts of interest to report.

Funding

This work was supported by K08 GM115859 [HCP]. This manuscript does not necessarily represent the position or policy of the US government or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We appreciate the interest in our review of antibiotic duration in hospitalized patients. Drs. Sikkens and van Agtmael comment that drug pharmacokinetics can alter true treatment duration.^1,2 Specifically, azithromycin has a long half-life in tissues.³ We did not consider pharmacokinetics in our prespecified protocol for study inclusion, nor require that studies compare the same drug between treatment groups. This is consistent with a systematic review of antibiotic duration in community-acquired pneumonia, which included 3 of the 4 studies comparing short-course azithromycin to a longer course of another antibiotic.⁴ Similarly, in a recent pilot study of antibiotic duration in bloodstream infections, only treatment duration was prespecified.⁵ We agree that the differing pharmacokinetics between drugs is a limitation to our findings.

To assess whether the inclusion of studies using short-course azithromycin biased our conclusions, we performed an additional meta-analysis for clinical efficacy excluding the 4 studies that compared azithromycin with another drug. This subgroup included 9 trials comprising 1270 patients. The overall risk difference was 0.3% (95% CI −2.7%, 3.3%), consistent with the primary findings that short-course antibiotic treatment is non-inferior to long-course antibiotic treatment. None of these 4 studies examined mortality; thus, the meta-analyses for short-term and long-term mortality are unaffected.

Disclosures

Dr. Royer holds stock in Pfizer. The authors have no other potential financial conflicts of interest to report.

Funding

This work was supported by K08 GM115859 [HCP]. This manuscript does not necessarily represent the position or policy of the US government or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We appreciate the interest in our review of antibiotic duration in hospitalized patients. Drs. Sikkens and van Agtmael comment that drug pharmacokinetics can alter true treatment duration.^1,2 Specifically, azithromycin has a long half-life in tissues.³ We did not consider pharmacokinetics in our prespecified protocol for study inclusion, nor require that studies compare the same drug between treatment groups. This is consistent with a systematic review of antibiotic duration in community-acquired pneumonia, which included 3 of the 4 studies comparing short-course azithromycin to a longer course of another antibiotic.⁴ Similarly, in a recent pilot study of antibiotic duration in bloodstream infections, only treatment duration was prespecified.⁵ We agree that the differing pharmacokinetics between drugs is a limitation to our findings.

To assess whether the inclusion of studies using short-course azithromycin biased our conclusions, we performed an additional meta-analysis for clinical efficacy excluding the 4 studies that compared azithromycin with another drug. This subgroup included 9 trials comprising 1270 patients. The overall risk difference was 0.3% (95% CI −2.7%, 3.3%), consistent with the primary findings that short-course antibiotic treatment is non-inferior to long-course antibiotic treatment. None of these 4 studies examined mortality; thus, the meta-analyses for short-term and long-term mortality are unaffected.

Disclosures

Dr. Royer holds stock in Pfizer. The authors have no other potential financial conflicts of interest to report.

Funding

This work was supported by K08 GM115859 [HCP]. This manuscript does not necessarily represent the position or policy of the US government or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We recommend the following combination treatment:

Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) 1 to 2 L by intravenous (IV) infusion over 2 to 4 hours.  This can be repeated every 6 to 12 hours.

Ketorolac 30-mg IV bolus, which can be repeated every 6 hours. However, patients with coronary artery disease, uncontrolled hypertension, acute renal failure, or cerebrovascular disease should instead receive aceta­minophen 1,000 mg, naproxen sodium 550 mg, or aspirin 325 mg by mouth.

Prochlorperazine or metoclopramide 10-mg IV infusion. This can be repeated every 6 hours. However, to reduce the extrapyramidal adverse effects of these drugs, patients should first receive diphenhydramine 25- to 50-mg IV bolus, which can be repeated every 6 to 8 hours.

Sodium valproate 500 to 1,000 mg by IV infusion over 20 minutes. This can be repeated after 8 hours.

Dexamethasone 4-mg IV bolus every 6 hours, or 10-mg IV bolus once in 24 hours.

Magnesium sulfate 500 to 1,000 mg by IV infusion over 1 hour. This can be repeated every 6 to 12 hours.

If the migraine has not improved after 3 cycles of this regimen, a neurologic consultation should be considered. Other options include dihydroergotamine and occipital nerve blocks¹ performed at the bedside.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Managing acute intractable migraine can be frustrating for both the practitioner and the patient. Some general principles are helpful.

Use a combination of drugs. Aborting a severe migraine attack often requires a combination of medications that work synergistically.

Use IV and intramuscular formulations rather than oral formulations: they are more rapidly absorbed, provide faster pain relief, and can be given when the nausea that often accompanies migraine precludes oral treatments.

Rule out secondary causes. The mnemonic SNOOP—systemic signs, neurologic signs, onset, older age, progression of existing headache disorder—is useful for assessing underlying causes.² Any patient presenting with intractable migraine should also have a thorough neuro­logic examination.

Screening electrocardiography may be helpful, as the pretreatment QTc interval may direct the choice of intravenous treatment. If the patient has a prolonged QTc or is taking another drug that could prolong the QTc, certain medications, specifically dopamine receptor antagonists and diphenhydra­mine, should be avoided.

Ask the patient what has worked previously. A particular agent may have been effective in aborting the migraine; thus, a single dose of it could abort the headache, expediting discharge.

Establish if a triptan or ergot derivative has been used during the 24 hours before presentation, as repeated dosing within this interval is not recommended.³

Establish the baseline headache severity. Complete headache relief is difficult to achieve in a patient with chronic daily headache, and establishing a more realistic goal (eg, 50% relief) from the outset is useful.

Antiemetics

Dopamine receptor antagonists are assumed to merely treat nausea in patients with migraine; however, they act independently to abort migraine and thus should be considered, irrespective of the presence of nausea.

The two most commonly used agents are prochlorperazine and metoclopramide. The American Academy of Neurology guidelines recommend prochlorperazine as first-line therapy for acute migraine. Metoclopramide is rated slightly lower and is considered to have moderate benefit.⁴ The Canadian Headache Society cites a high level of evidence supporting prochlorperazine and a moderate level of evidence supporting metoclopramide.⁵ The American Headache Society assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies gives prochlorperazine and metoclopramide a level B recommendation of “should offer” (a recommendation only additionally assigned to subcutaneous sumatriptan).³ Hence, either agent can be used.

To reduce the risk of posttreatment akathisia, diphenhydramine or benztropine may be given before starting a dopamine receptor antagonist. Diphenhydramine may be independently effective in migraine treatment,^6,7 but  data on this are limited.

Ketorolac, ibuprofen

Ketorolac and ibuprofen are the only available nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for IV administration. The Canadian Headache Society guidelines strongly recommend ketorolac for the treatment of migraine in emergency settings.⁵ Doses range from 30 mg to 60 mg.¹ Ibuprofen 400 to 800 mg by IV infusion is an acceptable alternative. These medications should be avoided in patients with renal failure or severe coronary artery disease.

Oral naproxen sodium is a possible alternative in patients with cardiovascular disease, as it has been shown to carry a lower cardiovascular risk than other NSAIDs.⁸

The same concerns in patients with renal dysfunction apply to any NSAID, as the enzyme cyclooxygenase plays a constitutive role in glomerular function.

Antiepileptic drugs

The antiepileptic drugs sodium valproate and levetiracetam are available in IV formulations that have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of status migrainosus¹ (ie, migraine lasting more than 72 hours). Valproate has the strongest track record, is well tolerated, and is effective in rapidly aborting migraine.⁹

Volume repletion

Although its use is anecdotal and to date no trial has measured its efficacy, IV volume repletion is often used in acute migraine, as most headache experts surmise it to be highly effective, especially in patients with prolonged nausea or vomiting.¹

Magnesium

IV magnesium is effective, particularly for migraine with aura.¹⁰ Hypotension is a common side effect, and pretreatment or concurrent treatment with IV fluids is advised. Doses from 500 mg to 1,000 mg have demonstrated efficacy.¹⁰

Corticosteroids

Corticosteroids can be used in the treatment of status migrainosus. Most studies have shown benefit in preventing recurrences rather than merely aborting migraine.¹¹ A systematic review suggested that recurrent headaches are milder with corticosteroid treatment; 19 of 25 studies indicated favorable benefit, and 6 of 19 studies indicated noninferior outcomes.¹²

Both IV methylprednisolone and IV dexamethasone may be considered.¹² Dexamethasone appears to be particularly effective in preventing headache recurrence when combined with other IV therapies.¹³ It can be given as a single dose of 10 mg, or as repeated doses of 4 mg up to 16 mg/day.¹ Patients with active psychosis or uncontrolled diabetes should be closely monitored for these conditions, which corticosteroids can worsen.

Serotoninergic agents

Serotonin agonists including subcutaneous sumatriptan and IV dihydroergotamine are highly effective, with proven statistical and clinical benefit.⁴ They should be considered in patients with no known history of coronary artery disease or other vaso-occlusive vascular disorder.¹

Ideally, IV dihydroergotamine should be administered after consultation with a neurologist or headache specialist, given the pretreatment and cotreatment requirements often necessary to suppress its side effects. Careful titration is important to prevent transient headache exacerbations during infusion, as well as abdominal cramping, nausea, and diarrhea.

Avoid opioids

Opioids should be avoided. Evidence supporting their use in acute migraine is extremely limited,³ and the risks of migraine becoming chronic and of addiction are high.¹⁴ Safer, more effective alternatives have been detailed above.

A detailed algorithm for the management of patients with acute migraine has been published¹⁴ and is aimed at decreasing acute treatment with opioids and barbiturates.

We recommend the following combination treatment:

Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) 1 to 2 L by intravenous (IV) infusion over 2 to 4 hours.  This can be repeated every 6 to 12 hours.

Ketorolac 30-mg IV bolus, which can be repeated every 6 hours. However, patients with coronary artery disease, uncontrolled hypertension, acute renal failure, or cerebrovascular disease should instead receive aceta­minophen 1,000 mg, naproxen sodium 550 mg, or aspirin 325 mg by mouth.

Prochlorperazine or metoclopramide 10-mg IV infusion. This can be repeated every 6 hours. However, to reduce the extrapyramidal adverse effects of these drugs, patients should first receive diphenhydramine 25- to 50-mg IV bolus, which can be repeated every 6 to 8 hours.

Sodium valproate 500 to 1,000 mg by IV infusion over 20 minutes. This can be repeated after 8 hours.

Dexamethasone 4-mg IV bolus every 6 hours, or 10-mg IV bolus once in 24 hours.

Magnesium sulfate 500 to 1,000 mg by IV infusion over 1 hour. This can be repeated every 6 to 12 hours.

If the migraine has not improved after 3 cycles of this regimen, a neurologic consultation should be considered. Other options include dihydroergotamine and occipital nerve blocks¹ performed at the bedside.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Managing acute intractable migraine can be frustrating for both the practitioner and the patient. Some general principles are helpful.

Use a combination of drugs. Aborting a severe migraine attack often requires a combination of medications that work synergistically.

Use IV and intramuscular formulations rather than oral formulations: they are more rapidly absorbed, provide faster pain relief, and can be given when the nausea that often accompanies migraine precludes oral treatments.

Rule out secondary causes. The mnemonic SNOOP—systemic signs, neurologic signs, onset, older age, progression of existing headache disorder—is useful for assessing underlying causes.² Any patient presenting with intractable migraine should also have a thorough neuro­logic examination.

Screening electrocardiography may be helpful, as the pretreatment QTc interval may direct the choice of intravenous treatment. If the patient has a prolonged QTc or is taking another drug that could prolong the QTc, certain medications, specifically dopamine receptor antagonists and diphenhydra­mine, should be avoided.

Ask the patient what has worked previously. A particular agent may have been effective in aborting the migraine; thus, a single dose of it could abort the headache, expediting discharge.

Establish if a triptan or ergot derivative has been used during the 24 hours before presentation, as repeated dosing within this interval is not recommended.³

Establish the baseline headache severity. Complete headache relief is difficult to achieve in a patient with chronic daily headache, and establishing a more realistic goal (eg, 50% relief) from the outset is useful.

Antiemetics

Dopamine receptor antagonists are assumed to merely treat nausea in patients with migraine; however, they act independently to abort migraine and thus should be considered, irrespective of the presence of nausea.

The two most commonly used agents are prochlorperazine and metoclopramide. The American Academy of Neurology guidelines recommend prochlorperazine as first-line therapy for acute migraine. Metoclopramide is rated slightly lower and is considered to have moderate benefit.⁴ The Canadian Headache Society cites a high level of evidence supporting prochlorperazine and a moderate level of evidence supporting metoclopramide.⁵ The American Headache Society assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies gives prochlorperazine and metoclopramide a level B recommendation of “should offer” (a recommendation only additionally assigned to subcutaneous sumatriptan).³ Hence, either agent can be used.

To reduce the risk of posttreatment akathisia, diphenhydramine or benztropine may be given before starting a dopamine receptor antagonist. Diphenhydramine may be independently effective in migraine treatment,^6,7 but  data on this are limited.

Ketorolac, ibuprofen

Ketorolac and ibuprofen are the only available nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for IV administration. The Canadian Headache Society guidelines strongly recommend ketorolac for the treatment of migraine in emergency settings.⁵ Doses range from 30 mg to 60 mg.¹ Ibuprofen 400 to 800 mg by IV infusion is an acceptable alternative. These medications should be avoided in patients with renal failure or severe coronary artery disease.

Oral naproxen sodium is a possible alternative in patients with cardiovascular disease, as it has been shown to carry a lower cardiovascular risk than other NSAIDs.⁸

The same concerns in patients with renal dysfunction apply to any NSAID, as the enzyme cyclooxygenase plays a constitutive role in glomerular function.

Antiepileptic drugs

The antiepileptic drugs sodium valproate and levetiracetam are available in IV formulations that have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of status migrainosus¹ (ie, migraine lasting more than 72 hours). Valproate has the strongest track record, is well tolerated, and is effective in rapidly aborting migraine.⁹

Volume repletion

Although its use is anecdotal and to date no trial has measured its efficacy, IV volume repletion is often used in acute migraine, as most headache experts surmise it to be highly effective, especially in patients with prolonged nausea or vomiting.¹

Magnesium

IV magnesium is effective, particularly for migraine with aura.¹⁰ Hypotension is a common side effect, and pretreatment or concurrent treatment with IV fluids is advised. Doses from 500 mg to 1,000 mg have demonstrated efficacy.¹⁰

Corticosteroids

Corticosteroids can be used in the treatment of status migrainosus. Most studies have shown benefit in preventing recurrences rather than merely aborting migraine.¹¹ A systematic review suggested that recurrent headaches are milder with corticosteroid treatment; 19 of 25 studies indicated favorable benefit, and 6 of 19 studies indicated noninferior outcomes.¹²

Both IV methylprednisolone and IV dexamethasone may be considered.¹² Dexamethasone appears to be particularly effective in preventing headache recurrence when combined with other IV therapies.¹³ It can be given as a single dose of 10 mg, or as repeated doses of 4 mg up to 16 mg/day.¹ Patients with active psychosis or uncontrolled diabetes should be closely monitored for these conditions, which corticosteroids can worsen.

Serotoninergic agents

Serotonin agonists including subcutaneous sumatriptan and IV dihydroergotamine are highly effective, with proven statistical and clinical benefit.⁴ They should be considered in patients with no known history of coronary artery disease or other vaso-occlusive vascular disorder.¹

Ideally, IV dihydroergotamine should be administered after consultation with a neurologist or headache specialist, given the pretreatment and cotreatment requirements often necessary to suppress its side effects. Careful titration is important to prevent transient headache exacerbations during infusion, as well as abdominal cramping, nausea, and diarrhea.

Avoid opioids

Opioids should be avoided. Evidence supporting their use in acute migraine is extremely limited,³ and the risks of migraine becoming chronic and of addiction are high.¹⁴ Safer, more effective alternatives have been detailed above.

A detailed algorithm for the management of patients with acute migraine has been published¹⁴ and is aimed at decreasing acute treatment with opioids and barbiturates.

We recommend the following combination treatment:

Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) 1 to 2 L by intravenous (IV) infusion over 2 to 4 hours.  This can be repeated every 6 to 12 hours.

Ketorolac 30-mg IV bolus, which can be repeated every 6 hours. However, patients with coronary artery disease, uncontrolled hypertension, acute renal failure, or cerebrovascular disease should instead receive aceta­minophen 1,000 mg, naproxen sodium 550 mg, or aspirin 325 mg by mouth.

Prochlorperazine or metoclopramide 10-mg IV infusion. This can be repeated every 6 hours. However, to reduce the extrapyramidal adverse effects of these drugs, patients should first receive diphenhydramine 25- to 50-mg IV bolus, which can be repeated every 6 to 8 hours.

Sodium valproate 500 to 1,000 mg by IV infusion over 20 minutes. This can be repeated after 8 hours.

Dexamethasone 4-mg IV bolus every 6 hours, or 10-mg IV bolus once in 24 hours.

Magnesium sulfate 500 to 1,000 mg by IV infusion over 1 hour. This can be repeated every 6 to 12 hours.

If the migraine has not improved after 3 cycles of this regimen, a neurologic consultation should be considered. Other options include dihydroergotamine and occipital nerve blocks¹ performed at the bedside.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Managing acute intractable migraine can be frustrating for both the practitioner and the patient. Some general principles are helpful.

Use a combination of drugs. Aborting a severe migraine attack often requires a combination of medications that work synergistically.

Use IV and intramuscular formulations rather than oral formulations: they are more rapidly absorbed, provide faster pain relief, and can be given when the nausea that often accompanies migraine precludes oral treatments.

Rule out secondary causes. The mnemonic SNOOP—systemic signs, neurologic signs, onset, older age, progression of existing headache disorder—is useful for assessing underlying causes.² Any patient presenting with intractable migraine should also have a thorough neuro­logic examination.

Screening electrocardiography may be helpful, as the pretreatment QTc interval may direct the choice of intravenous treatment. If the patient has a prolonged QTc or is taking another drug that could prolong the QTc, certain medications, specifically dopamine receptor antagonists and diphenhydra­mine, should be avoided.

Ask the patient what has worked previously. A particular agent may have been effective in aborting the migraine; thus, a single dose of it could abort the headache, expediting discharge.

Establish if a triptan or ergot derivative has been used during the 24 hours before presentation, as repeated dosing within this interval is not recommended.³

Establish the baseline headache severity. Complete headache relief is difficult to achieve in a patient with chronic daily headache, and establishing a more realistic goal (eg, 50% relief) from the outset is useful.

Antiemetics

Dopamine receptor antagonists are assumed to merely treat nausea in patients with migraine; however, they act independently to abort migraine and thus should be considered, irrespective of the presence of nausea.

The two most commonly used agents are prochlorperazine and metoclopramide. The American Academy of Neurology guidelines recommend prochlorperazine as first-line therapy for acute migraine. Metoclopramide is rated slightly lower and is considered to have moderate benefit.⁴ The Canadian Headache Society cites a high level of evidence supporting prochlorperazine and a moderate level of evidence supporting metoclopramide.⁵ The American Headache Society assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies gives prochlorperazine and metoclopramide a level B recommendation of “should offer” (a recommendation only additionally assigned to subcutaneous sumatriptan).³ Hence, either agent can be used.

To reduce the risk of posttreatment akathisia, diphenhydramine or benztropine may be given before starting a dopamine receptor antagonist. Diphenhydramine may be independently effective in migraine treatment,^6,7 but  data on this are limited.

Ketorolac, ibuprofen

Ketorolac and ibuprofen are the only available nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for IV administration. The Canadian Headache Society guidelines strongly recommend ketorolac for the treatment of migraine in emergency settings.⁵ Doses range from 30 mg to 60 mg.¹ Ibuprofen 400 to 800 mg by IV infusion is an acceptable alternative. These medications should be avoided in patients with renal failure or severe coronary artery disease.

Oral naproxen sodium is a possible alternative in patients with cardiovascular disease, as it has been shown to carry a lower cardiovascular risk than other NSAIDs.⁸

The same concerns in patients with renal dysfunction apply to any NSAID, as the enzyme cyclooxygenase plays a constitutive role in glomerular function.

Antiepileptic drugs

The antiepileptic drugs sodium valproate and levetiracetam are available in IV formulations that have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of status migrainosus¹ (ie, migraine lasting more than 72 hours). Valproate has the strongest track record, is well tolerated, and is effective in rapidly aborting migraine.⁹

Volume repletion

Although its use is anecdotal and to date no trial has measured its efficacy, IV volume repletion is often used in acute migraine, as most headache experts surmise it to be highly effective, especially in patients with prolonged nausea or vomiting.¹

Magnesium

IV magnesium is effective, particularly for migraine with aura.¹⁰ Hypotension is a common side effect, and pretreatment or concurrent treatment with IV fluids is advised. Doses from 500 mg to 1,000 mg have demonstrated efficacy.¹⁰

Corticosteroids

Corticosteroids can be used in the treatment of status migrainosus. Most studies have shown benefit in preventing recurrences rather than merely aborting migraine.¹¹ A systematic review suggested that recurrent headaches are milder with corticosteroid treatment; 19 of 25 studies indicated favorable benefit, and 6 of 19 studies indicated noninferior outcomes.¹²

Both IV methylprednisolone and IV dexamethasone may be considered.¹² Dexamethasone appears to be particularly effective in preventing headache recurrence when combined with other IV therapies.¹³ It can be given as a single dose of 10 mg, or as repeated doses of 4 mg up to 16 mg/day.¹ Patients with active psychosis or uncontrolled diabetes should be closely monitored for these conditions, which corticosteroids can worsen.

Serotoninergic agents

Serotonin agonists including subcutaneous sumatriptan and IV dihydroergotamine are highly effective, with proven statistical and clinical benefit.⁴ They should be considered in patients with no known history of coronary artery disease or other vaso-occlusive vascular disorder.¹

Ideally, IV dihydroergotamine should be administered after consultation with a neurologist or headache specialist, given the pretreatment and cotreatment requirements often necessary to suppress its side effects. Careful titration is important to prevent transient headache exacerbations during infusion, as well as abdominal cramping, nausea, and diarrhea.

Avoid opioids

Opioids should be avoided. Evidence supporting their use in acute migraine is extremely limited,³ and the risks of migraine becoming chronic and of addiction are high.¹⁴ Safer, more effective alternatives have been detailed above.

A detailed algorithm for the management of patients with acute migraine has been published¹⁴ and is aimed at decreasing acute treatment with opioids and barbiturates.

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common infective agent in native and prosthetic valve endocarditis, and 13% to 22% of patients with S aureus bacteremia have infective endocarditis.¹

See related editorial

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is a good starting point in the workup of suspected infective endocarditis, but transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) plays a key role in diagnosis and is indicated in patients with a high pretest probability of infective endocarditis, as in the following scenarios:

• Clinical picture consistent with infective endocarditis
• Presence of previously placed port or other indwelling vascular device
• Presence of a prosthetic valve or other prosthetic material 
• Presence of a pacemaker
• History of valve disease
• Injection drug use
• Positive blood cultures after 72 hours despite appropriate antibiotic treatment
• Abnormal TTE result requiring better visualization of valvular anatomy and function and confirmation of local complications
• Absence of another reasonable explanation for S aureus bacteremia.

Forgoing TEE is reasonable in patients with normal results on TTE, no predisposing risk factors, a reasonable alternative explanation for S aureus bacteremia, and a low pretest probability of infective endocarditis.¹ TEE may also be unnecessary if there is another disease focus requiring extended treatment (eg, vertebral infection) and there are no findings suggesting complicated infective endocarditis, eg, persistent bacteremia, symptoms of heart failure, and conduction abnormality.¹

TEE also may be unnecessary in patients at low risk who have identifiable foci of bacteremia due to soft-tissue infection or a newly placed vascular catheter and whose bacteremia clears within 72 hours of the start of antibiotic therapy. These patients may be followed clinically for the development of new findings such as metastatic foci of infection (eg, septic pulmonary emboli, renal infarction, splenic abscess or infarction), the new onset of heart failure or cardiac conduction abnormality, or recurrence of previously cleared S aureus bacteremia. If these should develop, then a more invasive study such as TEE may be warranted.

INFECTIVE ENDOCARDITIS: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY

The US incidence rate of infective endocarditis has steadily increased, with an estimated 457,052 hospitalizations from 2000 to 2011. During that period, from 2000 to 2007, there was a marked increase in valve replacement surgeries.² This trend is likely explained by an increase in the at-risk population—eg, elderly patients, patients with opiate dependence or diabetes, and patients on hemodialysis.

Although S aureus is the predominant pathogen in infective endocarditis,^2–5S aureus bacteremia is often observed in patients with skin or soft-tissue infection, prosthetic device infection, vascular graft or catheter infection, and bone and joint infections. S aureus bacteremia necessitates a search for the source of infection.

S aureus is a major pathogen in bloodstream infections, and up to 14% of patients with S aureus bacteremia have infective endocarditis as the primary source of infection.³ The pathogenesis of S aureus infective endocarditis is thought to be mediated by cell-wall factors that promote adhesion to the extracellular matrix of intravascular structures.³

A new localizing symptom such as back pain, joint pain, or swelling in a patient with S aureus bacteremia should trigger an investigation for metastatic infection.

Infectious disease consultation in patients with S aureus bacteremia is associated with improved outcomes and, thus, should be pursued.³

A cardiac surgery consult is recommended early on in cases of infective endocarditis caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and fungi, as well as in patients with complications such as valvular insufficiency, perivalvular abscess, conduction abnormalities, persistent bacteremia, and metastatic foci of infection.⁶

Risk factors for infective endocarditis include injection drug abuse, valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease (unrepaired, repaired with residual defects, or fully repaired within the past 6 months), previous infective endocarditis, prosthetic heart valve, and cardiac transplant.^2–4,6 Other risk factors are poor dentition, hemodialysis, ventriculoatrial shunts, intravascular devices including vascular grafts, and pacemakers.^2,3 Many risk factors for infective endocarditis and S aureus bacteremia overlap.³

DIAGNOSTIC PRINCIPLES

The clinical presentation of infective endocarditis can vary from a nonspecific infectious syndrome, to overt organ failure (heart failure, kidney failure), to an acute vascular catastrophe (arterial ischemia, cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarction). Patients may present with indolent symptoms such as fever, fatigue, and weight loss,⁶ or they may present at an advanced stage, with fulminant acute heart failure due to valvular insufficiency or with arrhythmias due to a perivalvular abscess infiltrating the conduction system. Extracardiac clinical manifestations may be related to direct infective metastatic foci such as septic emboli or to immunologic phenomena such as glomerulonephritis or Osler nodes.

ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY’S ROLE IN DIAGNOSIS

TTE plays an important role in diagnosis and risk stratification of infective endocarditis.⁶ TTE is usually done first because of its low cost, wide availability, and safety; it has a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity over 95%.⁸ While a normal result on TTE does not completely rule out infective endocarditis, completely normal valvular morphology and function on TTE make the diagnosis less likely.^8,9

If suspicion remains high despite a normal study, repeating TTE at a later time may result in a higher diagnostic yield because of growth of the suspected vegetation. Otherwise, TEE should be considered.

TEE provides a higher spatial resolution and diagnostic yield than TTE, especially for detecting complex pathology such as pseudoaneurysm, valve perforation, or valvular abscess. TEE has a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 95% for infective endocarditis.⁸ It should be performed early in patients with preexisting valve disease, prosthetic cardiac material (eg, valves), or a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.^6,7

Detecting valve vegetation provides answers about the cause of S aureus bacteremia with its complications (eg, septic emboli, mycotic aneurysm) and informs decisions about the duration of antibiotic therapy and the need for surgery.^3,6

As with any diagnostic test, it is important to compare the results of any recent study with those of previous studies whenever possible to differentiate new from old findings.

WHEN TO FORGO TEE IN S AUREUS BACTEREMIA

Because TEE is invasive and requires the patient to swallow an endoscopic probe,¹⁰ it is important to screen patients for esophageal disease, cervical spine conditions, and baseline respiratory insufficiency. Complications are rare but include esophageal perforation, esophageal bleeding, pharyngeal hematoma, and reactions to anesthesia.¹⁰

As with any diagnostic test, the clinician first needs to consider the patient’s pretest probability of the disease, the diagnostic accuracy, the associated risks and costs, and the implications of the results.

While TEE provides better diagnostic images than TTE, a normal TEE study does not exclude the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: small lesions and complications such as paravalvular abscess of a prosthetic aortic valve may still be missed. In such patients, a repeat TEE examination or additional imaging study (eg, gated computed tomographic angiography) should be considered.⁶

Noninfective sterile echodensities, valvular tumors such as papillary fibroelastomas, Lambl excrescences, and suture lines of prosthetic valves are among the conditions and factors that can cause a false-positive result on TEE. 

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common infective agent in native and prosthetic valve endocarditis, and 13% to 22% of patients with S aureus bacteremia have infective endocarditis.¹

See related editorial

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is a good starting point in the workup of suspected infective endocarditis, but transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) plays a key role in diagnosis and is indicated in patients with a high pretest probability of infective endocarditis, as in the following scenarios:

• Clinical picture consistent with infective endocarditis
• Presence of previously placed port or other indwelling vascular device
• Presence of a prosthetic valve or other prosthetic material 
• Presence of a pacemaker
• History of valve disease
• Injection drug use
• Positive blood cultures after 72 hours despite appropriate antibiotic treatment
• Abnormal TTE result requiring better visualization of valvular anatomy and function and confirmation of local complications
• Absence of another reasonable explanation for S aureus bacteremia.

Forgoing TEE is reasonable in patients with normal results on TTE, no predisposing risk factors, a reasonable alternative explanation for S aureus bacteremia, and a low pretest probability of infective endocarditis.¹ TEE may also be unnecessary if there is another disease focus requiring extended treatment (eg, vertebral infection) and there are no findings suggesting complicated infective endocarditis, eg, persistent bacteremia, symptoms of heart failure, and conduction abnormality.¹

TEE also may be unnecessary in patients at low risk who have identifiable foci of bacteremia due to soft-tissue infection or a newly placed vascular catheter and whose bacteremia clears within 72 hours of the start of antibiotic therapy. These patients may be followed clinically for the development of new findings such as metastatic foci of infection (eg, septic pulmonary emboli, renal infarction, splenic abscess or infarction), the new onset of heart failure or cardiac conduction abnormality, or recurrence of previously cleared S aureus bacteremia. If these should develop, then a more invasive study such as TEE may be warranted.

INFECTIVE ENDOCARDITIS: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY

The US incidence rate of infective endocarditis has steadily increased, with an estimated 457,052 hospitalizations from 2000 to 2011. During that period, from 2000 to 2007, there was a marked increase in valve replacement surgeries.² This trend is likely explained by an increase in the at-risk population—eg, elderly patients, patients with opiate dependence or diabetes, and patients on hemodialysis.

Although S aureus is the predominant pathogen in infective endocarditis,^2–5S aureus bacteremia is often observed in patients with skin or soft-tissue infection, prosthetic device infection, vascular graft or catheter infection, and bone and joint infections. S aureus bacteremia necessitates a search for the source of infection.

S aureus is a major pathogen in bloodstream infections, and up to 14% of patients with S aureus bacteremia have infective endocarditis as the primary source of infection.³ The pathogenesis of S aureus infective endocarditis is thought to be mediated by cell-wall factors that promote adhesion to the extracellular matrix of intravascular structures.³

A new localizing symptom such as back pain, joint pain, or swelling in a patient with S aureus bacteremia should trigger an investigation for metastatic infection.

Infectious disease consultation in patients with S aureus bacteremia is associated with improved outcomes and, thus, should be pursued.³

A cardiac surgery consult is recommended early on in cases of infective endocarditis caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and fungi, as well as in patients with complications such as valvular insufficiency, perivalvular abscess, conduction abnormalities, persistent bacteremia, and metastatic foci of infection.⁶

Risk factors for infective endocarditis include injection drug abuse, valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease (unrepaired, repaired with residual defects, or fully repaired within the past 6 months), previous infective endocarditis, prosthetic heart valve, and cardiac transplant.^2–4,6 Other risk factors are poor dentition, hemodialysis, ventriculoatrial shunts, intravascular devices including vascular grafts, and pacemakers.^2,3 Many risk factors for infective endocarditis and S aureus bacteremia overlap.³

DIAGNOSTIC PRINCIPLES

The clinical presentation of infective endocarditis can vary from a nonspecific infectious syndrome, to overt organ failure (heart failure, kidney failure), to an acute vascular catastrophe (arterial ischemia, cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarction). Patients may present with indolent symptoms such as fever, fatigue, and weight loss,⁶ or they may present at an advanced stage, with fulminant acute heart failure due to valvular insufficiency or with arrhythmias due to a perivalvular abscess infiltrating the conduction system. Extracardiac clinical manifestations may be related to direct infective metastatic foci such as septic emboli or to immunologic phenomena such as glomerulonephritis or Osler nodes.

ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY’S ROLE IN DIAGNOSIS

TTE plays an important role in diagnosis and risk stratification of infective endocarditis.⁶ TTE is usually done first because of its low cost, wide availability, and safety; it has a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity over 95%.⁸ While a normal result on TTE does not completely rule out infective endocarditis, completely normal valvular morphology and function on TTE make the diagnosis less likely.^8,9

If suspicion remains high despite a normal study, repeating TTE at a later time may result in a higher diagnostic yield because of growth of the suspected vegetation. Otherwise, TEE should be considered.

TEE provides a higher spatial resolution and diagnostic yield than TTE, especially for detecting complex pathology such as pseudoaneurysm, valve perforation, or valvular abscess. TEE has a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 95% for infective endocarditis.⁸ It should be performed early in patients with preexisting valve disease, prosthetic cardiac material (eg, valves), or a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.^6,7

Detecting valve vegetation provides answers about the cause of S aureus bacteremia with its complications (eg, septic emboli, mycotic aneurysm) and informs decisions about the duration of antibiotic therapy and the need for surgery.^3,6

As with any diagnostic test, it is important to compare the results of any recent study with those of previous studies whenever possible to differentiate new from old findings.

WHEN TO FORGO TEE IN S AUREUS BACTEREMIA

Because TEE is invasive and requires the patient to swallow an endoscopic probe,¹⁰ it is important to screen patients for esophageal disease, cervical spine conditions, and baseline respiratory insufficiency. Complications are rare but include esophageal perforation, esophageal bleeding, pharyngeal hematoma, and reactions to anesthesia.¹⁰

As with any diagnostic test, the clinician first needs to consider the patient’s pretest probability of the disease, the diagnostic accuracy, the associated risks and costs, and the implications of the results.

While TEE provides better diagnostic images than TTE, a normal TEE study does not exclude the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: small lesions and complications such as paravalvular abscess of a prosthetic aortic valve may still be missed. In such patients, a repeat TEE examination or additional imaging study (eg, gated computed tomographic angiography) should be considered.⁶

Noninfective sterile echodensities, valvular tumors such as papillary fibroelastomas, Lambl excrescences, and suture lines of prosthetic valves are among the conditions and factors that can cause a false-positive result on TEE. 

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common infective agent in native and prosthetic valve endocarditis, and 13% to 22% of patients with S aureus bacteremia have infective endocarditis.¹

See related editorial

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is a good starting point in the workup of suspected infective endocarditis, but transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) plays a key role in diagnosis and is indicated in patients with a high pretest probability of infective endocarditis, as in the following scenarios:

• Clinical picture consistent with infective endocarditis
• Presence of previously placed port or other indwelling vascular device
• Presence of a prosthetic valve or other prosthetic material 
• Presence of a pacemaker
• History of valve disease
• Injection drug use
• Positive blood cultures after 72 hours despite appropriate antibiotic treatment
• Abnormal TTE result requiring better visualization of valvular anatomy and function and confirmation of local complications
• Absence of another reasonable explanation for S aureus bacteremia.

Forgoing TEE is reasonable in patients with normal results on TTE, no predisposing risk factors, a reasonable alternative explanation for S aureus bacteremia, and a low pretest probability of infective endocarditis.¹ TEE may also be unnecessary if there is another disease focus requiring extended treatment (eg, vertebral infection) and there are no findings suggesting complicated infective endocarditis, eg, persistent bacteremia, symptoms of heart failure, and conduction abnormality.¹

TEE also may be unnecessary in patients at low risk who have identifiable foci of bacteremia due to soft-tissue infection or a newly placed vascular catheter and whose bacteremia clears within 72 hours of the start of antibiotic therapy. These patients may be followed clinically for the development of new findings such as metastatic foci of infection (eg, septic pulmonary emboli, renal infarction, splenic abscess or infarction), the new onset of heart failure or cardiac conduction abnormality, or recurrence of previously cleared S aureus bacteremia. If these should develop, then a more invasive study such as TEE may be warranted.

INFECTIVE ENDOCARDITIS: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY

The US incidence rate of infective endocarditis has steadily increased, with an estimated 457,052 hospitalizations from 2000 to 2011. During that period, from 2000 to 2007, there was a marked increase in valve replacement surgeries.² This trend is likely explained by an increase in the at-risk population—eg, elderly patients, patients with opiate dependence or diabetes, and patients on hemodialysis.

Although S aureus is the predominant pathogen in infective endocarditis,^2–5S aureus bacteremia is often observed in patients with skin or soft-tissue infection, prosthetic device infection, vascular graft or catheter infection, and bone and joint infections. S aureus bacteremia necessitates a search for the source of infection.

S aureus is a major pathogen in bloodstream infections, and up to 14% of patients with S aureus bacteremia have infective endocarditis as the primary source of infection.³ The pathogenesis of S aureus infective endocarditis is thought to be mediated by cell-wall factors that promote adhesion to the extracellular matrix of intravascular structures.³

A new localizing symptom such as back pain, joint pain, or swelling in a patient with S aureus bacteremia should trigger an investigation for metastatic infection.

Infectious disease consultation in patients with S aureus bacteremia is associated with improved outcomes and, thus, should be pursued.³

A cardiac surgery consult is recommended early on in cases of infective endocarditis caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and fungi, as well as in patients with complications such as valvular insufficiency, perivalvular abscess, conduction abnormalities, persistent bacteremia, and metastatic foci of infection.⁶

Risk factors for infective endocarditis include injection drug abuse, valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease (unrepaired, repaired with residual defects, or fully repaired within the past 6 months), previous infective endocarditis, prosthetic heart valve, and cardiac transplant.^2–4,6 Other risk factors are poor dentition, hemodialysis, ventriculoatrial shunts, intravascular devices including vascular grafts, and pacemakers.^2,3 Many risk factors for infective endocarditis and S aureus bacteremia overlap.³

DIAGNOSTIC PRINCIPLES

The clinical presentation of infective endocarditis can vary from a nonspecific infectious syndrome, to overt organ failure (heart failure, kidney failure), to an acute vascular catastrophe (arterial ischemia, cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarction). Patients may present with indolent symptoms such as fever, fatigue, and weight loss,⁶ or they may present at an advanced stage, with fulminant acute heart failure due to valvular insufficiency or with arrhythmias due to a perivalvular abscess infiltrating the conduction system. Extracardiac clinical manifestations may be related to direct infective metastatic foci such as septic emboli or to immunologic phenomena such as glomerulonephritis or Osler nodes.

ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY’S ROLE IN DIAGNOSIS

TTE plays an important role in diagnosis and risk stratification of infective endocarditis.⁶ TTE is usually done first because of its low cost, wide availability, and safety; it has a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity over 95%.⁸ While a normal result on TTE does not completely rule out infective endocarditis, completely normal valvular morphology and function on TTE make the diagnosis less likely.^8,9

If suspicion remains high despite a normal study, repeating TTE at a later time may result in a higher diagnostic yield because of growth of the suspected vegetation. Otherwise, TEE should be considered.

TEE provides a higher spatial resolution and diagnostic yield than TTE, especially for detecting complex pathology such as pseudoaneurysm, valve perforation, or valvular abscess. TEE has a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 95% for infective endocarditis.⁸ It should be performed early in patients with preexisting valve disease, prosthetic cardiac material (eg, valves), or a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.^6,7

Detecting valve vegetation provides answers about the cause of S aureus bacteremia with its complications (eg, septic emboli, mycotic aneurysm) and informs decisions about the duration of antibiotic therapy and the need for surgery.^3,6

As with any diagnostic test, it is important to compare the results of any recent study with those of previous studies whenever possible to differentiate new from old findings.

WHEN TO FORGO TEE IN S AUREUS BACTEREMIA

Because TEE is invasive and requires the patient to swallow an endoscopic probe,¹⁰ it is important to screen patients for esophageal disease, cervical spine conditions, and baseline respiratory insufficiency. Complications are rare but include esophageal perforation, esophageal bleeding, pharyngeal hematoma, and reactions to anesthesia.¹⁰

As with any diagnostic test, the clinician first needs to consider the patient’s pretest probability of the disease, the diagnostic accuracy, the associated risks and costs, and the implications of the results.

While TEE provides better diagnostic images than TTE, a normal TEE study does not exclude the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: small lesions and complications such as paravalvular abscess of a prosthetic aortic valve may still be missed. In such patients, a repeat TEE examination or additional imaging study (eg, gated computed tomographic angiography) should be considered.⁶

Noninfective sterile echodensities, valvular tumors such as papillary fibroelastomas, Lambl excrescences, and suture lines of prosthetic valves are among the conditions and factors that can cause a false-positive result on TEE. 

Morbidity and mortality rates in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia remain high even though diagnostic tests have improved and antibiotic therapy is effective. Diagnosis and management are made more complex by difficulties in finding the source of bacteremia and sites of metastatic infection.

See related article

S aureus bacteremia is a finding that demands further investigation, since up to 25% of people who have it may have endocarditis, a condition with even worse consequences.¹ The ability of S aureus to infect normal valves^2,3 adds to the challenge. In the mid-20th century, Wilson and Hamburger⁴ demonstrated that 64% of patients with S aureus bacteremia had evidence of valvular infection at autopsy. In a more recent case series of patients with S aureus endocarditis, the diagnosis was established at autopsy in 32%.⁵

Specific clinical findings in patients with complicated S aureus bacteremia—those who have a site of infection remote from or extended beyond the primary focus—may be useful in determining the need for additional diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

In a prospective cohort study, Fowler et al⁶ identified several factors that predicted complicated S aureus bacteremia (including but not limited to endocarditis):

• Prolonged bacteremia (> 48–72 hours after initiation of therapy)
• Community onset
• Fever persisting more than 72 hours
• Skin findings suggesting systemic infection.

THE ROLE OF ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY

Infective endocarditis may be difficult to detect in patients with S aureus bacteremia; experts recommend routine use of echocardiography in this process.^7,8 Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) detects more cases of endocarditis than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE),^9,10 but access, cost, and risks lead to questions about its utility.

Guidance for the use of echocardiography in S aureus bacteremia^1,10–14 continues to evolve. Consensus seems to be emerging that the risk of endocarditis is lower in patients with S aureus bacteremia who:

• Do not have a prosthetic valve or other permanent intracardiac device
• Have sterile blood cultures within 96 hours after the initial set
• Are not hemodialysis-dependent
• Developed the bacteremia in a healthcare setting
• Have no secondary focus of infection
• Have no clinical signs of infective endocarditis.

Heriot et al¹⁴ point out that studies of risk-stratification approaches to echocardiography in patients with S aureus bacteremia are difficult to interpret, as there are questions regarding the validity of the studies and the balance of the risks and benefits.¹ The question of timing of TEE remains largely unexplored, both in initial screening and in follow-up of previously undiagnosed cases of S aureus endocarditis.

In this issue of the Journal, Mirrakhimov et al¹⁵ weigh in on use of a risk-stratification model to guide use of TEE in patients with S aureus bacteremia. Their comments about avoiding TEE in patients who have an alternative explanation for S aureus bacteremia and a low pretest probability for infectious endocarditis and in patients with a disease focus that requires extended treatment are derived from a survey of infectious disease physicians.¹⁶

ROLE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONSULTATION

Infectious disease consultation reduces mortality rates and healthcare costs for a variety of infections, with endocarditis as a prime example.¹⁷ For S aureus bacteremia, a large and growing body of literature demonstrates the impact of infectious disease consultation, including improved adherence to guidelines and quality measures,^18–20 lower in-hospital mortality rates^18–21 and earlier hospital discharge.¹⁸ In the era of “curbside consults” and “e-consultation,” it is interesting to note the enduring value of bedside, in-person consultation in the management of S aureus bacteremia.²⁰

Many people with S aureus bacteremia should undergo TEE. Until the evidence becomes more robust, the decision to forgo TEE must be made with caution. The expertise of infectious disease physicians in the diagnosis and management of endocarditis can assist clinicians working with the often-complex patients who develop S aureus bacteremia. If the goal is to improve outcomes, infectious disease consultation may be at least as important as appropriate selection of patients for TEE.

Morbidity and mortality rates in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia remain high even though diagnostic tests have improved and antibiotic therapy is effective. Diagnosis and management are made more complex by difficulties in finding the source of bacteremia and sites of metastatic infection.

See related article

S aureus bacteremia is a finding that demands further investigation, since up to 25% of people who have it may have endocarditis, a condition with even worse consequences.¹ The ability of S aureus to infect normal valves^2,3 adds to the challenge. In the mid-20th century, Wilson and Hamburger⁴ demonstrated that 64% of patients with S aureus bacteremia had evidence of valvular infection at autopsy. In a more recent case series of patients with S aureus endocarditis, the diagnosis was established at autopsy in 32%.⁵

Specific clinical findings in patients with complicated S aureus bacteremia—those who have a site of infection remote from or extended beyond the primary focus—may be useful in determining the need for additional diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

In a prospective cohort study, Fowler et al⁶ identified several factors that predicted complicated S aureus bacteremia (including but not limited to endocarditis):

• Prolonged bacteremia (> 48–72 hours after initiation of therapy)
• Community onset
• Fever persisting more than 72 hours
• Skin findings suggesting systemic infection.

THE ROLE OF ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY

Infective endocarditis may be difficult to detect in patients with S aureus bacteremia; experts recommend routine use of echocardiography in this process.^7,8 Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) detects more cases of endocarditis than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE),^9,10 but access, cost, and risks lead to questions about its utility.

Guidance for the use of echocardiography in S aureus bacteremia^1,10–14 continues to evolve. Consensus seems to be emerging that the risk of endocarditis is lower in patients with S aureus bacteremia who:

• Do not have a prosthetic valve or other permanent intracardiac device
• Have sterile blood cultures within 96 hours after the initial set
• Are not hemodialysis-dependent
• Developed the bacteremia in a healthcare setting
• Have no secondary focus of infection
• Have no clinical signs of infective endocarditis.

Heriot et al¹⁴ point out that studies of risk-stratification approaches to echocardiography in patients with S aureus bacteremia are difficult to interpret, as there are questions regarding the validity of the studies and the balance of the risks and benefits.¹ The question of timing of TEE remains largely unexplored, both in initial screening and in follow-up of previously undiagnosed cases of S aureus endocarditis.

In this issue of the Journal, Mirrakhimov et al¹⁵ weigh in on use of a risk-stratification model to guide use of TEE in patients with S aureus bacteremia. Their comments about avoiding TEE in patients who have an alternative explanation for S aureus bacteremia and a low pretest probability for infectious endocarditis and in patients with a disease focus that requires extended treatment are derived from a survey of infectious disease physicians.¹⁶

ROLE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONSULTATION

Infectious disease consultation reduces mortality rates and healthcare costs for a variety of infections, with endocarditis as a prime example.¹⁷ For S aureus bacteremia, a large and growing body of literature demonstrates the impact of infectious disease consultation, including improved adherence to guidelines and quality measures,^18–20 lower in-hospital mortality rates^18–21 and earlier hospital discharge.¹⁸ In the era of “curbside consults” and “e-consultation,” it is interesting to note the enduring value of bedside, in-person consultation in the management of S aureus bacteremia.²⁰

Many people with S aureus bacteremia should undergo TEE. Until the evidence becomes more robust, the decision to forgo TEE must be made with caution. The expertise of infectious disease physicians in the diagnosis and management of endocarditis can assist clinicians working with the often-complex patients who develop S aureus bacteremia. If the goal is to improve outcomes, infectious disease consultation may be at least as important as appropriate selection of patients for TEE.

Morbidity and mortality rates in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia remain high even though diagnostic tests have improved and antibiotic therapy is effective. Diagnosis and management are made more complex by difficulties in finding the source of bacteremia and sites of metastatic infection.

See related article

S aureus bacteremia is a finding that demands further investigation, since up to 25% of people who have it may have endocarditis, a condition with even worse consequences.¹ The ability of S aureus to infect normal valves^2,3 adds to the challenge. In the mid-20th century, Wilson and Hamburger⁴ demonstrated that 64% of patients with S aureus bacteremia had evidence of valvular infection at autopsy. In a more recent case series of patients with S aureus endocarditis, the diagnosis was established at autopsy in 32%.⁵

Specific clinical findings in patients with complicated S aureus bacteremia—those who have a site of infection remote from or extended beyond the primary focus—may be useful in determining the need for additional diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

In a prospective cohort study, Fowler et al⁶ identified several factors that predicted complicated S aureus bacteremia (including but not limited to endocarditis):

• Prolonged bacteremia (> 48–72 hours after initiation of therapy)
• Community onset
• Fever persisting more than 72 hours
• Skin findings suggesting systemic infection.

THE ROLE OF ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY

Infective endocarditis may be difficult to detect in patients with S aureus bacteremia; experts recommend routine use of echocardiography in this process.^7,8 Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) detects more cases of endocarditis than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE),^9,10 but access, cost, and risks lead to questions about its utility.

Guidance for the use of echocardiography in S aureus bacteremia^1,10–14 continues to evolve. Consensus seems to be emerging that the risk of endocarditis is lower in patients with S aureus bacteremia who:

• Do not have a prosthetic valve or other permanent intracardiac device
• Have sterile blood cultures within 96 hours after the initial set
• Are not hemodialysis-dependent
• Developed the bacteremia in a healthcare setting
• Have no secondary focus of infection
• Have no clinical signs of infective endocarditis.

Heriot et al¹⁴ point out that studies of risk-stratification approaches to echocardiography in patients with S aureus bacteremia are difficult to interpret, as there are questions regarding the validity of the studies and the balance of the risks and benefits.¹ The question of timing of TEE remains largely unexplored, both in initial screening and in follow-up of previously undiagnosed cases of S aureus endocarditis.

In this issue of the Journal, Mirrakhimov et al¹⁵ weigh in on use of a risk-stratification model to guide use of TEE in patients with S aureus bacteremia. Their comments about avoiding TEE in patients who have an alternative explanation for S aureus bacteremia and a low pretest probability for infectious endocarditis and in patients with a disease focus that requires extended treatment are derived from a survey of infectious disease physicians.¹⁶

ROLE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONSULTATION

Infectious disease consultation reduces mortality rates and healthcare costs for a variety of infections, with endocarditis as a prime example.¹⁷ For S aureus bacteremia, a large and growing body of literature demonstrates the impact of infectious disease consultation, including improved adherence to guidelines and quality measures,^18–20 lower in-hospital mortality rates^18–21 and earlier hospital discharge.¹⁸ In the era of “curbside consults” and “e-consultation,” it is interesting to note the enduring value of bedside, in-person consultation in the management of S aureus bacteremia.²⁰

Many people with S aureus bacteremia should undergo TEE. Until the evidence becomes more robust, the decision to forgo TEE must be made with caution. The expertise of infectious disease physicians in the diagnosis and management of endocarditis can assist clinicians working with the often-complex patients who develop S aureus bacteremia. If the goal is to improve outcomes, infectious disease consultation may be at least as important as appropriate selection of patients for TEE.

Patients who survive critical illness such as shock or respiratory failure warranting admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) often develop a constellation of chronic symptoms including cognitive decline, psychiatric disturbances, and physical weakness. These changes can prevent patients from returning to their former level of function and often necessitate significant support for patients and their caregivers.¹

See related editorial

With growing awareness of the unique needs of ICU survivors, multidisciplinary PICS clinics have emerged. However, access to these clinics is limited, and most patients discharged from the ICU eventually follow up with their primary care provider. Primary care physicians who recognize PICS, understand its prognosis and its burden on caregivers, and are aware of tools that have shown promise in its management will be well prepared to address the needs of these patients.

COGNITIVE DECLINE

Several studies have shown that survivors of critical illness suffer from long-term impairment of multiple domains of cognition, including executive function. In one study, 40% of ICU survivors had global cognition scores at 1 year after discharge that were worse than those seen in moderate traumatic brain injury, and over 25% had scores similar to those seen in Alzheimer dementia.² Age had poor correlation with the incidence of long-term cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment may not be recognized in younger patients without a high index of suspicion and directed cognitive screening. Well-known cognitive impairment screening tests such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment may help in the evaluation of PICS.

No treatment has been shown to improve long-term cognitive impairment from any cause. The most important intervention is to recognize it and to consider how impaired executive function may interfere with other aspects of treatment, such as participation in physical therapy and adherence to medication regimens.

Evidence is also emerging that patients are often inappropriately discharged on psychoactive medications (including atypical antipsychotic drugs and sedatives) that were started in the inpatient setting.⁷ These medications increase the risk of accidents, arrhythmia, and infection, as well as add to the overall cost of postdischarge care, and they do not improve the prolonged confusion and cognitive impairment associated with PICS.⁸ Psychoactive medications should be discontinued once delirium-associated behavior has resolved, as recommended in the American Geriatrics Society guideline on postoperative delirium.⁹ Further, patients and caregivers should be counseled so that they have reasonable expectations regarding the timing of cognitive recovery, which may be prolonged and incomplete.

PHYSICAL WEAKNESS

Prolonged physical weakness may affect up to one-third of patients who survive critical illness, and it may persist for years, severely compromising quality of life.¹⁰ In addition to deconditioning due to bedrest and illness, ICU patients often develop critical illness myopathy and critical illness polyneuropathy.

Although the mechanisms and risk factors for injury to muscles and peripheral nerves are  not completely understood, the severity has been well described and ranges from proximal muscle weakness to complete quadriparesis, with inability to wean from mechanical ventilation. There is also an association with the severity of sepsis and the use of glucocorticoids and paralytics.¹⁰

Physical weakness can be readily apparent on routine history and physical examination. Differentiating critical illness myopathy from critical illness polyneuropathy requires invasive testing, including electromyography, but the results may not change management in the outpatient setting, making it unnecessary for most patients.

Physical weakness places a heavy burden on patients and their family and caregivers. As a result, most ICU patients suffer loss of employment and require supportive services on discharge, including home health aides and even institutionalization.

Physical therapy and occupational therapy are effective in reducing weakness and improving physical functioning; starting physical therapy in the outpatient setting may be as effective as early intervention in the ICU.¹¹ Given the high prevalence of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in patients after ICU discharge, referral for pulmonary or cardiovascular rehabilitation is recommended. Because of the possible link between glucocorticoids and critical illness myopathy, these drugs should be decreased or discontinued as soon as possible.

Mental health impairments in ICU survivors are common, severe, debilitating, and unfortunately, commonly overlooked. A recent study found a 37% incidence of depression and a 40% incidence of anxiety; further, 22% of patients met criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder.¹² Patients with critical illness are also more likely to have had untreated mental health illness before hospitalization. Anxiety may present with poor sleep, irritability, and fatigue. Posttraumatic stress disorder may manifest as flashbacks or as a severe cognitive or behavioral response to provocation. All of these may be assessed using standard screening questionnaires, including the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) for depression, and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screen (GAD-7).

Many primary care physicians are comfortable treating some of the psychiatric disturbances associated with PICS, such as depression, but may be challenged by the spectrum and complexity of mental illness of ICU survivors. Early referral to a mental health professional ensures optimal psychiatric care and allows more time to focus on the patient’s medical comorbidities.

SOCIAL SUPPORT

The cognitive, physical, and mental health complications coupled with other medical and psychiatric comorbidities result in serious social and financial stress on patients and their families. Long-term follow-up studies show that only half of patients return to work within 1 year of critical illness and that nearly one-fourth require continued assistance with activities of daily living.¹³ Reassuringly, however, most patients in 1 study had returned to work by 2 years from discharge.³

The immense burden on caregivers, the decrease in income, and increased expenditures in providing care result in increased stress on families. The incidence of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder is similar among patients and their caregivers.¹¹ The frequency of emotional morbidity and the severity of the caregiver burden associated with caring for ICU survivors led to the description of a new entity: post-intensive care syndrome-family, or PICS-F.

Because of these stresses, patients often benefit from referral to a social worker. Patients should also be encouraged to bring their caregivers to physician appointments, and family members should be encouraged to discuss their perspectives in the context of a dedicated appointment. Family members should also be screened and treated for their own medical and mental health challenges. A dedicated ICU survivorship clinic may help facilitate this holistic approach and provide complementary services to the primary care provider.

CRITICAL CARE RECOVERY

As survival rates after critical illness continue to improve and clinicians encounter more patients with PICS, it is essential to appreciate the extent of associated physical, emotional, and financial hardship and to recognize when cognitive impairment may interfere with treatment. Early and accurate recognition of these challenges can help the primary care physician arrange and coordinate recovery services that ICU survivors require. Including family members in follow-up appointments can help overcome challenges in adherence to treatment plans, uncover gaps in social support, and identify signs of caregiver distress.

A thorough physical assessment and a thoughtful reconciliation of medications are critical, as is engaging the assistance of physical and occupational therapists, mental health professionals, and social workers.

Risk factors for the illness that necessitated the ICU stay such as uncontrolled diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and substance abuse, as well as medical sequelae such as chronic respiratory failure and heart failure, must be considered and addressed by the primary care physician, with referral to medical specialists if necessary.

Referral to an ICU survivorship center, if locally available, could help the physician manage the patient’s complex and multidisciplinary physical and neuropsychiatric needs. The Society of Critical Care Medicine maintains a resource for survivors and families at www.myicucare.org/thrive/pages/find-in-person-support-groups.aspx.

Patients who survive critical illness such as shock or respiratory failure warranting admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) often develop a constellation of chronic symptoms including cognitive decline, psychiatric disturbances, and physical weakness. These changes can prevent patients from returning to their former level of function and often necessitate significant support for patients and their caregivers.¹

See related editorial

With growing awareness of the unique needs of ICU survivors, multidisciplinary PICS clinics have emerged. However, access to these clinics is limited, and most patients discharged from the ICU eventually follow up with their primary care provider. Primary care physicians who recognize PICS, understand its prognosis and its burden on caregivers, and are aware of tools that have shown promise in its management will be well prepared to address the needs of these patients.

COGNITIVE DECLINE

Several studies have shown that survivors of critical illness suffer from long-term impairment of multiple domains of cognition, including executive function. In one study, 40% of ICU survivors had global cognition scores at 1 year after discharge that were worse than those seen in moderate traumatic brain injury, and over 25% had scores similar to those seen in Alzheimer dementia.² Age had poor correlation with the incidence of long-term cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment may not be recognized in younger patients without a high index of suspicion and directed cognitive screening. Well-known cognitive impairment screening tests such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment may help in the evaluation of PICS.

No treatment has been shown to improve long-term cognitive impairment from any cause. The most important intervention is to recognize it and to consider how impaired executive function may interfere with other aspects of treatment, such as participation in physical therapy and adherence to medication regimens.

Evidence is also emerging that patients are often inappropriately discharged on psychoactive medications (including atypical antipsychotic drugs and sedatives) that were started in the inpatient setting.⁷ These medications increase the risk of accidents, arrhythmia, and infection, as well as add to the overall cost of postdischarge care, and they do not improve the prolonged confusion and cognitive impairment associated with PICS.⁸ Psychoactive medications should be discontinued once delirium-associated behavior has resolved, as recommended in the American Geriatrics Society guideline on postoperative delirium.⁹ Further, patients and caregivers should be counseled so that they have reasonable expectations regarding the timing of cognitive recovery, which may be prolonged and incomplete.

PHYSICAL WEAKNESS

Prolonged physical weakness may affect up to one-third of patients who survive critical illness, and it may persist for years, severely compromising quality of life.¹⁰ In addition to deconditioning due to bedrest and illness, ICU patients often develop critical illness myopathy and critical illness polyneuropathy.

Although the mechanisms and risk factors for injury to muscles and peripheral nerves are  not completely understood, the severity has been well described and ranges from proximal muscle weakness to complete quadriparesis, with inability to wean from mechanical ventilation. There is also an association with the severity of sepsis and the use of glucocorticoids and paralytics.¹⁰

Physical weakness can be readily apparent on routine history and physical examination. Differentiating critical illness myopathy from critical illness polyneuropathy requires invasive testing, including electromyography, but the results may not change management in the outpatient setting, making it unnecessary for most patients.

Physical weakness places a heavy burden on patients and their family and caregivers. As a result, most ICU patients suffer loss of employment and require supportive services on discharge, including home health aides and even institutionalization.

Physical therapy and occupational therapy are effective in reducing weakness and improving physical functioning; starting physical therapy in the outpatient setting may be as effective as early intervention in the ICU.¹¹ Given the high prevalence of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in patients after ICU discharge, referral for pulmonary or cardiovascular rehabilitation is recommended. Because of the possible link between glucocorticoids and critical illness myopathy, these drugs should be decreased or discontinued as soon as possible.

Mental health impairments in ICU survivors are common, severe, debilitating, and unfortunately, commonly overlooked. A recent study found a 37% incidence of depression and a 40% incidence of anxiety; further, 22% of patients met criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder.¹² Patients with critical illness are also more likely to have had untreated mental health illness before hospitalization. Anxiety may present with poor sleep, irritability, and fatigue. Posttraumatic stress disorder may manifest as flashbacks or as a severe cognitive or behavioral response to provocation. All of these may be assessed using standard screening questionnaires, including the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) for depression, and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screen (GAD-7).

Many primary care physicians are comfortable treating some of the psychiatric disturbances associated with PICS, such as depression, but may be challenged by the spectrum and complexity of mental illness of ICU survivors. Early referral to a mental health professional ensures optimal psychiatric care and allows more time to focus on the patient’s medical comorbidities.

SOCIAL SUPPORT

The cognitive, physical, and mental health complications coupled with other medical and psychiatric comorbidities result in serious social and financial stress on patients and their families. Long-term follow-up studies show that only half of patients return to work within 1 year of critical illness and that nearly one-fourth require continued assistance with activities of daily living.¹³ Reassuringly, however, most patients in 1 study had returned to work by 2 years from discharge.³

The immense burden on caregivers, the decrease in income, and increased expenditures in providing care result in increased stress on families. The incidence of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder is similar among patients and their caregivers.¹¹ The frequency of emotional morbidity and the severity of the caregiver burden associated with caring for ICU survivors led to the description of a new entity: post-intensive care syndrome-family, or PICS-F.

Because of these stresses, patients often benefit from referral to a social worker. Patients should also be encouraged to bring their caregivers to physician appointments, and family members should be encouraged to discuss their perspectives in the context of a dedicated appointment. Family members should also be screened and treated for their own medical and mental health challenges. A dedicated ICU survivorship clinic may help facilitate this holistic approach and provide complementary services to the primary care provider.

CRITICAL CARE RECOVERY

As survival rates after critical illness continue to improve and clinicians encounter more patients with PICS, it is essential to appreciate the extent of associated physical, emotional, and financial hardship and to recognize when cognitive impairment may interfere with treatment. Early and accurate recognition of these challenges can help the primary care physician arrange and coordinate recovery services that ICU survivors require. Including family members in follow-up appointments can help overcome challenges in adherence to treatment plans, uncover gaps in social support, and identify signs of caregiver distress.

A thorough physical assessment and a thoughtful reconciliation of medications are critical, as is engaging the assistance of physical and occupational therapists, mental health professionals, and social workers.

Risk factors for the illness that necessitated the ICU stay such as uncontrolled diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and substance abuse, as well as medical sequelae such as chronic respiratory failure and heart failure, must be considered and addressed by the primary care physician, with referral to medical specialists if necessary.

Referral to an ICU survivorship center, if locally available, could help the physician manage the patient’s complex and multidisciplinary physical and neuropsychiatric needs. The Society of Critical Care Medicine maintains a resource for survivors and families at www.myicucare.org/thrive/pages/find-in-person-support-groups.aspx.

Patients who survive critical illness such as shock or respiratory failure warranting admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) often develop a constellation of chronic symptoms including cognitive decline, psychiatric disturbances, and physical weakness. These changes can prevent patients from returning to their former level of function and often necessitate significant support for patients and their caregivers.¹

See related editorial

With growing awareness of the unique needs of ICU survivors, multidisciplinary PICS clinics have emerged. However, access to these clinics is limited, and most patients discharged from the ICU eventually follow up with their primary care provider. Primary care physicians who recognize PICS, understand its prognosis and its burden on caregivers, and are aware of tools that have shown promise in its management will be well prepared to address the needs of these patients.

COGNITIVE DECLINE

Several studies have shown that survivors of critical illness suffer from long-term impairment of multiple domains of cognition, including executive function. In one study, 40% of ICU survivors had global cognition scores at 1 year after discharge that were worse than those seen in moderate traumatic brain injury, and over 25% had scores similar to those seen in Alzheimer dementia.² Age had poor correlation with the incidence of long-term cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment may not be recognized in younger patients without a high index of suspicion and directed cognitive screening. Well-known cognitive impairment screening tests such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment may help in the evaluation of PICS.

No treatment has been shown to improve long-term cognitive impairment from any cause. The most important intervention is to recognize it and to consider how impaired executive function may interfere with other aspects of treatment, such as participation in physical therapy and adherence to medication regimens.

Evidence is also emerging that patients are often inappropriately discharged on psychoactive medications (including atypical antipsychotic drugs and sedatives) that were started in the inpatient setting.⁷ These medications increase the risk of accidents, arrhythmia, and infection, as well as add to the overall cost of postdischarge care, and they do not improve the prolonged confusion and cognitive impairment associated with PICS.⁸ Psychoactive medications should be discontinued once delirium-associated behavior has resolved, as recommended in the American Geriatrics Society guideline on postoperative delirium.⁹ Further, patients and caregivers should be counseled so that they have reasonable expectations regarding the timing of cognitive recovery, which may be prolonged and incomplete.

PHYSICAL WEAKNESS

Prolonged physical weakness may affect up to one-third of patients who survive critical illness, and it may persist for years, severely compromising quality of life.¹⁰ In addition to deconditioning due to bedrest and illness, ICU patients often develop critical illness myopathy and critical illness polyneuropathy.

Although the mechanisms and risk factors for injury to muscles and peripheral nerves are  not completely understood, the severity has been well described and ranges from proximal muscle weakness to complete quadriparesis, with inability to wean from mechanical ventilation. There is also an association with the severity of sepsis and the use of glucocorticoids and paralytics.¹⁰

Physical weakness can be readily apparent on routine history and physical examination. Differentiating critical illness myopathy from critical illness polyneuropathy requires invasive testing, including electromyography, but the results may not change management in the outpatient setting, making it unnecessary for most patients.

Physical weakness places a heavy burden on patients and their family and caregivers. As a result, most ICU patients suffer loss of employment and require supportive services on discharge, including home health aides and even institutionalization.

Physical therapy and occupational therapy are effective in reducing weakness and improving physical functioning; starting physical therapy in the outpatient setting may be as effective as early intervention in the ICU.¹¹ Given the high prevalence of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in patients after ICU discharge, referral for pulmonary or cardiovascular rehabilitation is recommended. Because of the possible link between glucocorticoids and critical illness myopathy, these drugs should be decreased or discontinued as soon as possible.

Mental health impairments in ICU survivors are common, severe, debilitating, and unfortunately, commonly overlooked. A recent study found a 37% incidence of depression and a 40% incidence of anxiety; further, 22% of patients met criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder.¹² Patients with critical illness are also more likely to have had untreated mental health illness before hospitalization. Anxiety may present with poor sleep, irritability, and fatigue. Posttraumatic stress disorder may manifest as flashbacks or as a severe cognitive or behavioral response to provocation. All of these may be assessed using standard screening questionnaires, including the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) for depression, and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screen (GAD-7).

Many primary care physicians are comfortable treating some of the psychiatric disturbances associated with PICS, such as depression, but may be challenged by the spectrum and complexity of mental illness of ICU survivors. Early referral to a mental health professional ensures optimal psychiatric care and allows more time to focus on the patient’s medical comorbidities.

SOCIAL SUPPORT

The cognitive, physical, and mental health complications coupled with other medical and psychiatric comorbidities result in serious social and financial stress on patients and their families. Long-term follow-up studies show that only half of patients return to work within 1 year of critical illness and that nearly one-fourth require continued assistance with activities of daily living.¹³ Reassuringly, however, most patients in 1 study had returned to work by 2 years from discharge.³

The immense burden on caregivers, the decrease in income, and increased expenditures in providing care result in increased stress on families. The incidence of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder is similar among patients and their caregivers.¹¹ The frequency of emotional morbidity and the severity of the caregiver burden associated with caring for ICU survivors led to the description of a new entity: post-intensive care syndrome-family, or PICS-F.

Because of these stresses, patients often benefit from referral to a social worker. Patients should also be encouraged to bring their caregivers to physician appointments, and family members should be encouraged to discuss their perspectives in the context of a dedicated appointment. Family members should also be screened and treated for their own medical and mental health challenges. A dedicated ICU survivorship clinic may help facilitate this holistic approach and provide complementary services to the primary care provider.

CRITICAL CARE RECOVERY

As survival rates after critical illness continue to improve and clinicians encounter more patients with PICS, it is essential to appreciate the extent of associated physical, emotional, and financial hardship and to recognize when cognitive impairment may interfere with treatment. Early and accurate recognition of these challenges can help the primary care physician arrange and coordinate recovery services that ICU survivors require. Including family members in follow-up appointments can help overcome challenges in adherence to treatment plans, uncover gaps in social support, and identify signs of caregiver distress.

A thorough physical assessment and a thoughtful reconciliation of medications are critical, as is engaging the assistance of physical and occupational therapists, mental health professionals, and social workers.

Risk factors for the illness that necessitated the ICU stay such as uncontrolled diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and substance abuse, as well as medical sequelae such as chronic respiratory failure and heart failure, must be considered and addressed by the primary care physician, with referral to medical specialists if necessary.

Referral to an ICU survivorship center, if locally available, could help the physician manage the patient’s complex and multidisciplinary physical and neuropsychiatric needs. The Society of Critical Care Medicine maintains a resource for survivors and families at www.myicucare.org/thrive/pages/find-in-person-support-groups.aspx.

My introduction to critical care medicine came about during the summer between my third and fourth years of medical school. During that brief break, I, like most of my classmates, was drawn to the classic medical satire The House of God by Samuel Shem,¹ which had become a cult classic in the medical field for its ghoulish medical wisdom and dark humor. In “the house,” the intensive care unit (ICU) is “that mausoleum down the hall,” its patients “perched precariously on the edge of that slick bobsled ride down to death.”¹ This sentiment persisted even as I began my critical care medicine fellowship in the mid-1990s.

See related article

The science and practice of critical care medicine have changed, evolved, and advanced over the past several decades reflecting newer technology, but also an aging population with higher acuity.² Critical care medicine has established itself as a specialty in its own right, and the importance of the physician intensivist-led multidisciplinary care teams in optimizing outcome has been demonstrated.^3,4 These teams have been associated with improved quality of care, reduced length of stay, improved resource utilization, and reduced rates of complications, morbidity, and death.

While there have been few medical miracles and limited advances in therapeutics over the last 30 years, advances in patient management, adherence to processes of care, better use of technology, and more timely diagnosis and treatment have facilitated improved outcomes.⁵ Collaboration with nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and other healthcare personnel is invaluable, as these providers are responsible for executing management protocols such as weaning sedation and mechanical ventilation, nutrition, glucose control, vasopressor and electrolyte titration, positioning, and early ambulation.

Unfortunately, as an increasing number of patients are being discharged from the ICU, evidence is accumulating that ICU survivors may develop persistent organ dysfunction requiring prolonged stays in the ICU and resulting in chronic critical illness. A 2015 study estimated 380,000 cases of chronic critical illness annually, particularly among the elderly population, with attendant hospital costs of up to $26 billion.⁶ While 70% of these patients may survive their hospitalization, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) estimates that the 1-year post-discharge mortality rate may exceed 50%.⁷

We can take pride and comfort in knowing that the past several decades have seen growth in critical care training, more engaged practice, and heightened communication resulting in lower mortality rates.⁸ However, a majority of survivors suffer significant morbidities that may be severe and persist for a prolonged period after hospital discharge. These worsening impairments after discharge are termed postintensive care syndrome (PICS), which manifests as a new or worsening mental, cognitive, and physical condition and may affect up to 50% of ICU survivors.⁶

The impact on daily functioning and quality of life can be devastating, and primary care physicians will be increasingly called on to diagnose and participate in ongoing post-discharge management. Additionally, the impact of critical illness on relatives and informal caregivers can be long-lasting and profound, increasing their own risk of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and financial hardship.

In this issue of the Journal, Golovyan and colleagues identify several potential complications and sequelae of critical illness after discharge from the ICU.⁹ Primary care providers will see these patients in outpatient settings and need to be prepared to triage and treat the new-onset and chronic conditions for which these patients are at high risk.

In addition, as the authors point out, family members and informal caregivers need to be counseled about the proper care of these patients as well as themselves.

The current healthcare system does not appropriately address these survivors and their families. In 2015, the Society of Critical Care Medicine announced the THRIVE initiative, designed to improve support for the patient and family after critical illness. Given the many survivors and caregivers touched by critical illness, the Society has invested in THRIVE with the intent of helping those affected to work together with clinicians to advance recovery. Through peer support groups, post-ICU clinics, and continuing research into quality improvement, THRIVE may help to reduce readmissions and improve quality of life for critical care survivors and their loved ones.

Things have changed since the days of The House of God. Critical care medicine has become a vibrant medical specialty and an integral part of our healthcare system. Dedicated critical care physicians and the multidisciplinary teams they lead have improved outcomes and resource utilization.^2–5

The demand for ICU care will continue to increase as our population ages and the need for medical and surgical services increases commensurately. The ratio of ICU beds to hospital beds continues to escalate, and it is feared that the demand for critical care professionals may outstrip the supply.

While we no longer see that mournful shaking of the head when a patient is admitted to the ICU, we need to have the proper vision and use the most up-to-date scientific knowledge and research in treating underlying illness to ensure that once these patients are discharged, communication continues between critical care and primary care providers. This ongoing support will ensure these patients the best possible quality of life.

My introduction to critical care medicine came about during the summer between my third and fourth years of medical school. During that brief break, I, like most of my classmates, was drawn to the classic medical satire The House of God by Samuel Shem,¹ which had become a cult classic in the medical field for its ghoulish medical wisdom and dark humor. In “the house,” the intensive care unit (ICU) is “that mausoleum down the hall,” its patients “perched precariously on the edge of that slick bobsled ride down to death.”¹ This sentiment persisted even as I began my critical care medicine fellowship in the mid-1990s.

See related article

The science and practice of critical care medicine have changed, evolved, and advanced over the past several decades reflecting newer technology, but also an aging population with higher acuity.² Critical care medicine has established itself as a specialty in its own right, and the importance of the physician intensivist-led multidisciplinary care teams in optimizing outcome has been demonstrated.^3,4 These teams have been associated with improved quality of care, reduced length of stay, improved resource utilization, and reduced rates of complications, morbidity, and death.

While there have been few medical miracles and limited advances in therapeutics over the last 30 years, advances in patient management, adherence to processes of care, better use of technology, and more timely diagnosis and treatment have facilitated improved outcomes.⁵ Collaboration with nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and other healthcare personnel is invaluable, as these providers are responsible for executing management protocols such as weaning sedation and mechanical ventilation, nutrition, glucose control, vasopressor and electrolyte titration, positioning, and early ambulation.

Unfortunately, as an increasing number of patients are being discharged from the ICU, evidence is accumulating that ICU survivors may develop persistent organ dysfunction requiring prolonged stays in the ICU and resulting in chronic critical illness. A 2015 study estimated 380,000 cases of chronic critical illness annually, particularly among the elderly population, with attendant hospital costs of up to $26 billion.⁶ While 70% of these patients may survive their hospitalization, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) estimates that the 1-year post-discharge mortality rate may exceed 50%.⁷

We can take pride and comfort in knowing that the past several decades have seen growth in critical care training, more engaged practice, and heightened communication resulting in lower mortality rates.⁸ However, a majority of survivors suffer significant morbidities that may be severe and persist for a prolonged period after hospital discharge. These worsening impairments after discharge are termed postintensive care syndrome (PICS), which manifests as a new or worsening mental, cognitive, and physical condition and may affect up to 50% of ICU survivors.⁶

The impact on daily functioning and quality of life can be devastating, and primary care physicians will be increasingly called on to diagnose and participate in ongoing post-discharge management. Additionally, the impact of critical illness on relatives and informal caregivers can be long-lasting and profound, increasing their own risk of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and financial hardship.

In this issue of the Journal, Golovyan and colleagues identify several potential complications and sequelae of critical illness after discharge from the ICU.⁹ Primary care providers will see these patients in outpatient settings and need to be prepared to triage and treat the new-onset and chronic conditions for which these patients are at high risk.

In addition, as the authors point out, family members and informal caregivers need to be counseled about the proper care of these patients as well as themselves.

The current healthcare system does not appropriately address these survivors and their families. In 2015, the Society of Critical Care Medicine announced the THRIVE initiative, designed to improve support for the patient and family after critical illness. Given the many survivors and caregivers touched by critical illness, the Society has invested in THRIVE with the intent of helping those affected to work together with clinicians to advance recovery. Through peer support groups, post-ICU clinics, and continuing research into quality improvement, THRIVE may help to reduce readmissions and improve quality of life for critical care survivors and their loved ones.

Things have changed since the days of The House of God. Critical care medicine has become a vibrant medical specialty and an integral part of our healthcare system. Dedicated critical care physicians and the multidisciplinary teams they lead have improved outcomes and resource utilization.^2–5

The demand for ICU care will continue to increase as our population ages and the need for medical and surgical services increases commensurately. The ratio of ICU beds to hospital beds continues to escalate, and it is feared that the demand for critical care professionals may outstrip the supply.

While we no longer see that mournful shaking of the head when a patient is admitted to the ICU, we need to have the proper vision and use the most up-to-date scientific knowledge and research in treating underlying illness to ensure that once these patients are discharged, communication continues between critical care and primary care providers. This ongoing support will ensure these patients the best possible quality of life.

My introduction to critical care medicine came about during the summer between my third and fourth years of medical school. During that brief break, I, like most of my classmates, was drawn to the classic medical satire The House of God by Samuel Shem,¹ which had become a cult classic in the medical field for its ghoulish medical wisdom and dark humor. In “the house,” the intensive care unit (ICU) is “that mausoleum down the hall,” its patients “perched precariously on the edge of that slick bobsled ride down to death.”¹ This sentiment persisted even as I began my critical care medicine fellowship in the mid-1990s.

See related article

The science and practice of critical care medicine have changed, evolved, and advanced over the past several decades reflecting newer technology, but also an aging population with higher acuity.² Critical care medicine has established itself as a specialty in its own right, and the importance of the physician intensivist-led multidisciplinary care teams in optimizing outcome has been demonstrated.^3,4 These teams have been associated with improved quality of care, reduced length of stay, improved resource utilization, and reduced rates of complications, morbidity, and death.

While there have been few medical miracles and limited advances in therapeutics over the last 30 years, advances in patient management, adherence to processes of care, better use of technology, and more timely diagnosis and treatment have facilitated improved outcomes.⁵ Collaboration with nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and other healthcare personnel is invaluable, as these providers are responsible for executing management protocols such as weaning sedation and mechanical ventilation, nutrition, glucose control, vasopressor and electrolyte titration, positioning, and early ambulation.

Unfortunately, as an increasing number of patients are being discharged from the ICU, evidence is accumulating that ICU survivors may develop persistent organ dysfunction requiring prolonged stays in the ICU and resulting in chronic critical illness. A 2015 study estimated 380,000 cases of chronic critical illness annually, particularly among the elderly population, with attendant hospital costs of up to $26 billion.⁶ While 70% of these patients may survive their hospitalization, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) estimates that the 1-year post-discharge mortality rate may exceed 50%.⁷

We can take pride and comfort in knowing that the past several decades have seen growth in critical care training, more engaged practice, and heightened communication resulting in lower mortality rates.⁸ However, a majority of survivors suffer significant morbidities that may be severe and persist for a prolonged period after hospital discharge. These worsening impairments after discharge are termed postintensive care syndrome (PICS), which manifests as a new or worsening mental, cognitive, and physical condition and may affect up to 50% of ICU survivors.⁶

The impact on daily functioning and quality of life can be devastating, and primary care physicians will be increasingly called on to diagnose and participate in ongoing post-discharge management. Additionally, the impact of critical illness on relatives and informal caregivers can be long-lasting and profound, increasing their own risk of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and financial hardship.

In this issue of the Journal, Golovyan and colleagues identify several potential complications and sequelae of critical illness after discharge from the ICU.⁹ Primary care providers will see these patients in outpatient settings and need to be prepared to triage and treat the new-onset and chronic conditions for which these patients are at high risk.

In addition, as the authors point out, family members and informal caregivers need to be counseled about the proper care of these patients as well as themselves.

The current healthcare system does not appropriately address these survivors and their families. In 2015, the Society of Critical Care Medicine announced the THRIVE initiative, designed to improve support for the patient and family after critical illness. Given the many survivors and caregivers touched by critical illness, the Society has invested in THRIVE with the intent of helping those affected to work together with clinicians to advance recovery. Through peer support groups, post-ICU clinics, and continuing research into quality improvement, THRIVE may help to reduce readmissions and improve quality of life for critical care survivors and their loved ones.

Things have changed since the days of The House of God. Critical care medicine has become a vibrant medical specialty and an integral part of our healthcare system. Dedicated critical care physicians and the multidisciplinary teams they lead have improved outcomes and resource utilization.^2–5

The demand for ICU care will continue to increase as our population ages and the need for medical and surgical services increases commensurately. The ratio of ICU beds to hospital beds continues to escalate, and it is feared that the demand for critical care professionals may outstrip the supply.

While we no longer see that mournful shaking of the head when a patient is admitted to the ICU, we need to have the proper vision and use the most up-to-date scientific knowledge and research in treating underlying illness to ensure that once these patients are discharged, communication continues between critical care and primary care providers. This ongoing support will ensure these patients the best possible quality of life.

Cardiac rehabilitation has a class 1 indication (ie, strong recommendation) after heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention, and for stable angina or peripheral artery disease. It has a class 2a indication (ie, moderate recommendation) for stable systolic heart failure. Yet it is still under­utilized despite its demonstrated benefits, endorsement by most recognized cardiovascular societies, and coverage by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here, we review cardiac rehabilitation—its benefits, appropriate indications, barriers to referral and enrollment, and efforts to increase its use.

EXERCISE: SLOW TO BE ADOPTED

In 1772, William Heberden (also remembered today for describing swelling of the distal interphalangeal joints in osteoarthritis) described¹ a patient with angina pectoris who “set himself a task of sawing wood for half an hour every day, and was nearly cured.”

Despite early clues, it would be some time before the medical community would recognize the benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health. Before the 1930s, immobilization and extended bedrest were encouraged for up to 6 weeks after a cardiovascular event, leading to significant deconditioning.² Things slowly began to change in the 1940s with Levine’s introduction of up-to-chair therapy,³ and short daily walks were introduced in the 1950s. Over time, the link between a sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease was studied and led to greater investigation into the benefits of exercise, propelling us into the modern era.^4,5

CARDIAC REHABILITATION: COMPREHENSIVE RISK REDUCTION

The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) defines cardiac rehabilitation as the provision of comprehensive long-term services involving medical evaluation, prescriptive exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification, education, counseling, and behavioral interventions.⁶ CMS defines it as a physician-supervised program that furnishes physician-prescribed exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification (including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention), psychosocial assessment, outcomes assessment, and other items and services.⁷

In general, most cardiac rehabilitation programs provide medically supervised exercise and patient education designed to improve cardiac health and functional status. Risk factors are targeted to reduce disability and rates of morbidity and mortality, to improve functional capacity, and to alleviate activity-related symptoms.

FROM HOSPITAL TO SELF-MAINTENANCE

Phase 1: Inpatient rehabilitation

Phase 1 typically takes place in the inpatient setting, often after open heart surgery (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair or replacement, heart transplant), myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention. This phase may last only a few days, especially in the current era of short hospital stays.

During phase 1, patients discuss their health situation and goals with their primary provider or cardiologist and receive education about recovery and cardiovascular risk factors. Early mobilization to prepare for discharge and to resume simple activities of daily living is emphasized. Depending on the institution, phase 1 exercise may involve simple ambulation on the ward or using equipment such as a stationary bike or treadmill.⁶ Phase 2 enrollment ideally is set up before discharge.

Phase 2: Limited-time outpatient rehabilitation

Phase 2 traditionally takes place in a hospital-based outpatient facility and consists of a physician-supervised multidisciplinary program. Growing evidence shows that home-based cardiac rehabilitation may be as effective as a medical facility-based program and should be an option for patients who have difficulty getting access to a traditional program.⁸

A phase 2 program takes a threefold approach, consisting of exercise, aggressive risk-factor modification, and education classes. A Cochrane review⁹ included programs that also incorporated behavioral modification and psychosocial support as a means of secondary prevention, underscoring the evolving definition of cardiac rehabilitation.

During the initial phase 2 visit, an individualized treatment plan is developed, incorporating an exercise prescription and realistic goals for secondary prevention. Sessions typically take place 3 times a week for up to 36 sessions; usually, options are available for less frequent weekly attendance for a longer period to achieve a full course. In some cases, patients may qualify for up to 72 sessions, particularly if they have not progressed as expected.

Exercise. As part of the initial evaluation, AACVPR guidelines⁶ suggest an exercise test­—eg, a symptom-limited exercise stress test, a 6-minute walk test, or use of a Rating of Perceived Exertion scale. Prescribed exercise generally targets moderate activity in the range of 50% to 70% of peak estimated functional capacity. In the appropriate clinical context, high-functioning patients can be offered high-intensity interval training instead of moderate exercise, as they confer similar benefits.¹⁰

Risk-factor reduction. Comprehensive risk-factor reduction can address smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and diet, as well as psychosocial issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use. Sexual activity counseling may also be included.

Education classes are aimed at helping patients understand cardiovascular disease and empowering them to manage their medical treatment and lifestyle modifications.⁶

Phase 3: Lifetime maintenance

In phase 3, patients independently continue risk-factor modification and physical activity without cardiac monitoring. Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offer transition-to-maintenance classes after completion of phase 2; this may be a welcome option, particularly for those who have developed a good routine and rapport with the staff and other participants. Others may opt for an independent program, using their own home equipment or a local health club.

EXERCISE: MOSTLY SAFE, WITH PROVEN BENEFITS

The safety of cardiac rehabilitation is well established, with a low risk of major cardiovascular complications. A US study in the early 1980s of 167 cardiac rehabilitation programs found 1 cardiac arrest for every 111,996 exercise hours, 1 myocardial infarction per 293,990 exercise hours, and 1 fatality per 783,972 exercise hours.¹¹ A 2006 study of more than 65 cardiac rehabilitation centers in France found 1 cardiac event per 8,484 exercise tests and 1.3 cardiac arrests per 1 million exercise hours.¹²

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation are numerous and substantial.^9,13–17 A 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials with 14,486 participants found a reduced rate of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.86), with a number needed to treat of 37, and fewer hospital re­admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96).⁹

Reductions in mortality rates are dose-dependent. A study of more than 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries who participated in cardiac rehabilitation found that those who attended more sessions had a lower rate of morbidity and death at 4 years, particularly if they participated in more than 11 sessions. Those who attended the full 36 sessions had a mortality rate 47% lower than those who attended a single session.¹⁷ There was a 15% reduction in mortality for those who attended 36 sessions compared with 24 sessions, a 28% lower risk with attending 36 sessions compared with 12. After adjustment, each additional 6 sessions was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality. The curves continued to separate up to 4 years.

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation go beyond risk reduction and include improved functional capacity, greater ease with activities of daily living, and improved quality of life.⁹ Patients receive structure and support from the management team and other participants, which may provide an additional layer of friendship and psychosocial support for making lifestyle changes.

Is the overall mortality rate improved?

In the modern era, with access to optimal medical therapy and drug-eluting stents, one might expect only small additional benefit from cardiac rehabilitation. The 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis found that although cardiac rehabilitation contributed to improved cardiovascular mortality rates and health-related quality of life, no significant reduction was detected in the rate of death from all causes.⁸ But the analysis did not necessarily support removing the claim of reduced all-cause mortality for cardiac rehabilitation: only randomized controlled trials were examined, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was deemed to be low to moderate because of a general paucity of reports, including many small trials that followed patients for less than 12 months.

A large cohort analysis¹⁵ with more than 73,000 patients who had undergone cardiac rehabilitation found a relative reduction in mortality rate of 58% at 1 year and 21% to 34% at 5 years, with elderly women gaining the most benefit. In the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial, with more than 2,300 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years, exercise training for heart failure was associated with reduced rates of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99; P = .03).¹⁸

Regardless of the precise reduction in all-cause mortality, the cardiovascular and health-quality outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation clearly indicate benefit. More trials with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed to definitively determine the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the all-cause mortality rate.

WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED CARDIAC REHABILITATION?

The 2006 CMS coverage criteria listed the indications for cardiac rehabilitation as myocardial infarction within the preceding 12 months, coronary artery bypass surgery, stable angina pectoris, heart valve repair or replacement, percutaneous coronary intervention, and heart or heart-lung transplant.

In 2014, stable chronic systolic heart failure was added to the list (Table 2). Qualifications include New York Heart Association class II (mild symptoms, slight limitation of activity) to class IV (severe limitations, symptoms at rest), an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and being stable on optimal medical therapy for at least 6 weeks.

In 2017, CMS approved supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Supervised exercise has a class 1 recommendation by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for treating intermittent claudication. Supervised exercise therapy can increase walking distance by 180% and is superior to medical therapy alone. Unsupervised exercise has a class 2b recommendation.^19,20

Other patients may not qualify for phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation according to CMS or private insurance but could benefit from an exercise prescription and enrollment in a local phase 3 or home exercise program. Indications might include diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atrial fibrillation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after newer, less-invasive procedures for transcatheter valve repair and replacement are not well established, and more research is needed in this area.

WHEN TO REFER

Ades et al have defined cardiac rehabilitation referral as a combination of electronic medical records order, patient-physician discussion, and receipt of an order by a cardiac rehabilitation program.²¹

Ideally, referral for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation should take place at the time of hospital discharge. The AACVPR endorses a “cardiovascular continuum of care” model that emphasizes a smooth transition from inpatient to outpatient programs.⁶ Inpatient referral is a strong predictor of cardiac rehabilitation enrollment, and lack of referral in phase 1 negatively affects enrollment rates.

Depending on the diagnosis, US and Canadian guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation starting within 1 to 4 weeks of the index event, with acceptable wait times up to 60 days.^6,22 In the United Kingdom, referral is recommended within 24 hours of patient eligibility; assessment for a cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation program, with a defined pathway and individual goals, is expected to be completed within 10 working days of referral.²³ Such a standard is difficult to meet in the United States, where the time from hospital discharge to cardiac rehabilitation program enrollment averages 35 days.^24,25

After an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction should start outpatient cardiac rehabilitation within 14 days of the index event. For such cases, cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to be safe within 1 to 2 weeks of hospital discharge and is associated with increased participation rates.

REHABILITATION IS STILL UNDERUSED

Despite its significant benefits, cardiac rehabilitation is underused for many reasons.

Referral rates vary

A study using the 1997 Medicare claims data­base showed national referral rates of only 14% after myocardial infarction and 31% after coronary artery bypass grafting.³¹

A later study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2009 and 2017 found that the situation had improved, with a referral rate of about 60% for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.³² Nevertheless, referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation remain highly variable and still lag behind other CMS quality measures for optimal medical therapy after acute myocardial infarction (Figure 1). Factors associated with higher referral rates included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, care in a high-volume center for percutaneous coronary intervention, and care in a private or community hospital in a Midwestern state. Small Midwestern hospitals generally had referral rates of over 80%, while major teaching hospitals and hospital systems on the East Coast and the West Coast had referral rates of less than 20%. Unlike some studies, this study found that insurance status had little bearing on referral rates.

Other studies found lower referral rates for women and patients with comorbidities such as previous coronary artery bypass grafting, diabetes, and heart failure.^33,34

In the United Kingdom, patients with heart failure made up only 5% of patients in cardiac rehabilitation; only 7% to 20% of patients with a heart failure diagnosis were referred to cardiac rehabilitation from general and cardiology wards.³⁵

Enrollment, completion rates even lower

Rates of referral for cardiac rehabilitation do not equate to rates of enrollment or participation. Enrollment was 50% in the United Kingdom in 2016.³⁵ A 2015 US study evaluated 58,269 older patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction;  62% were referred for cardiac rehabilitation at the time of discharge, but only 23% of the total attended at least 1 session, and just 5% of the total completed 36 or more sessions.³⁶

BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

The underuse of cardiac rehabilitation in the United States has led to an American Heart Association presidential advisory on the referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.³⁴ Dozens of barriers are mentioned, with several standing out as having the largest impact: lack of physician referral, weak endorsement by the prescribing provider, female sex of patients, lack of program availability, work-related hardship, low socioeconomic status, and lack of or limited healthcare insurance. Copayments have also become a major barrier, often ranging from $20 to $40 per session for patients with Medicare.

The Million Hearts Initiative has established a goal of 70% cardiac rehabilitation compliance for eligible patients by 2022, a goal they estimate could save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually.²¹

Lack of physician awareness and lack of referral may be the most modifiable factors with the capacity to have the largest impact. Increasing physician awareness is a top priority not only for primary care providers, but also for cardiologists. In 2014, CMS made referral for cardiac rehabilitation a quality measure that is trackable and reportable. CMS has also proposed models that would incentivize participation by increasing reimbursement for services provided, but these models have been halted.

Additional efforts to increase cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation include automated order sets, increased caregiver education, and early morning or late evening classes, single-sex classes, home or mobile-based exercise programs, and parking and transportation assistance.³⁴ Grace et al³⁷ reported that referral rates rose to 86% when a cardiac rehabilitation order was integrated into the electronic medical record and combined with a hospital liaison to educate patients about their need for cardiac rehabilitation. Lowering patient copayments would also be a good idea. We have recently seen some creative ways to reduce copayments, including philanthropy and grants.

Cardiac rehabilitation has a class 1 indication (ie, strong recommendation) after heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention, and for stable angina or peripheral artery disease. It has a class 2a indication (ie, moderate recommendation) for stable systolic heart failure. Yet it is still under­utilized despite its demonstrated benefits, endorsement by most recognized cardiovascular societies, and coverage by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here, we review cardiac rehabilitation—its benefits, appropriate indications, barriers to referral and enrollment, and efforts to increase its use.

EXERCISE: SLOW TO BE ADOPTED

In 1772, William Heberden (also remembered today for describing swelling of the distal interphalangeal joints in osteoarthritis) described¹ a patient with angina pectoris who “set himself a task of sawing wood for half an hour every day, and was nearly cured.”

Despite early clues, it would be some time before the medical community would recognize the benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health. Before the 1930s, immobilization and extended bedrest were encouraged for up to 6 weeks after a cardiovascular event, leading to significant deconditioning.² Things slowly began to change in the 1940s with Levine’s introduction of up-to-chair therapy,³ and short daily walks were introduced in the 1950s. Over time, the link between a sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease was studied and led to greater investigation into the benefits of exercise, propelling us into the modern era.^4,5

CARDIAC REHABILITATION: COMPREHENSIVE RISK REDUCTION

The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) defines cardiac rehabilitation as the provision of comprehensive long-term services involving medical evaluation, prescriptive exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification, education, counseling, and behavioral interventions.⁶ CMS defines it as a physician-supervised program that furnishes physician-prescribed exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification (including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention), psychosocial assessment, outcomes assessment, and other items and services.⁷

In general, most cardiac rehabilitation programs provide medically supervised exercise and patient education designed to improve cardiac health and functional status. Risk factors are targeted to reduce disability and rates of morbidity and mortality, to improve functional capacity, and to alleviate activity-related symptoms.

FROM HOSPITAL TO SELF-MAINTENANCE

Phase 1: Inpatient rehabilitation

Phase 1 typically takes place in the inpatient setting, often after open heart surgery (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair or replacement, heart transplant), myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention. This phase may last only a few days, especially in the current era of short hospital stays.

During phase 1, patients discuss their health situation and goals with their primary provider or cardiologist and receive education about recovery and cardiovascular risk factors. Early mobilization to prepare for discharge and to resume simple activities of daily living is emphasized. Depending on the institution, phase 1 exercise may involve simple ambulation on the ward or using equipment such as a stationary bike or treadmill.⁶ Phase 2 enrollment ideally is set up before discharge.

Phase 2: Limited-time outpatient rehabilitation

Phase 2 traditionally takes place in a hospital-based outpatient facility and consists of a physician-supervised multidisciplinary program. Growing evidence shows that home-based cardiac rehabilitation may be as effective as a medical facility-based program and should be an option for patients who have difficulty getting access to a traditional program.⁸

A phase 2 program takes a threefold approach, consisting of exercise, aggressive risk-factor modification, and education classes. A Cochrane review⁹ included programs that also incorporated behavioral modification and psychosocial support as a means of secondary prevention, underscoring the evolving definition of cardiac rehabilitation.

During the initial phase 2 visit, an individualized treatment plan is developed, incorporating an exercise prescription and realistic goals for secondary prevention. Sessions typically take place 3 times a week for up to 36 sessions; usually, options are available for less frequent weekly attendance for a longer period to achieve a full course. In some cases, patients may qualify for up to 72 sessions, particularly if they have not progressed as expected.

Exercise. As part of the initial evaluation, AACVPR guidelines⁶ suggest an exercise test­—eg, a symptom-limited exercise stress test, a 6-minute walk test, or use of a Rating of Perceived Exertion scale. Prescribed exercise generally targets moderate activity in the range of 50% to 70% of peak estimated functional capacity. In the appropriate clinical context, high-functioning patients can be offered high-intensity interval training instead of moderate exercise, as they confer similar benefits.¹⁰

Risk-factor reduction. Comprehensive risk-factor reduction can address smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and diet, as well as psychosocial issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use. Sexual activity counseling may also be included.

Education classes are aimed at helping patients understand cardiovascular disease and empowering them to manage their medical treatment and lifestyle modifications.⁶

Phase 3: Lifetime maintenance

In phase 3, patients independently continue risk-factor modification and physical activity without cardiac monitoring. Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offer transition-to-maintenance classes after completion of phase 2; this may be a welcome option, particularly for those who have developed a good routine and rapport with the staff and other participants. Others may opt for an independent program, using their own home equipment or a local health club.

EXERCISE: MOSTLY SAFE, WITH PROVEN BENEFITS

The safety of cardiac rehabilitation is well established, with a low risk of major cardiovascular complications. A US study in the early 1980s of 167 cardiac rehabilitation programs found 1 cardiac arrest for every 111,996 exercise hours, 1 myocardial infarction per 293,990 exercise hours, and 1 fatality per 783,972 exercise hours.¹¹ A 2006 study of more than 65 cardiac rehabilitation centers in France found 1 cardiac event per 8,484 exercise tests and 1.3 cardiac arrests per 1 million exercise hours.¹²

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation are numerous and substantial.^9,13–17 A 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials with 14,486 participants found a reduced rate of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.86), with a number needed to treat of 37, and fewer hospital re­admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96).⁹

Reductions in mortality rates are dose-dependent. A study of more than 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries who participated in cardiac rehabilitation found that those who attended more sessions had a lower rate of morbidity and death at 4 years, particularly if they participated in more than 11 sessions. Those who attended the full 36 sessions had a mortality rate 47% lower than those who attended a single session.¹⁷ There was a 15% reduction in mortality for those who attended 36 sessions compared with 24 sessions, a 28% lower risk with attending 36 sessions compared with 12. After adjustment, each additional 6 sessions was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality. The curves continued to separate up to 4 years.

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation go beyond risk reduction and include improved functional capacity, greater ease with activities of daily living, and improved quality of life.⁹ Patients receive structure and support from the management team and other participants, which may provide an additional layer of friendship and psychosocial support for making lifestyle changes.

Is the overall mortality rate improved?

In the modern era, with access to optimal medical therapy and drug-eluting stents, one might expect only small additional benefit from cardiac rehabilitation. The 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis found that although cardiac rehabilitation contributed to improved cardiovascular mortality rates and health-related quality of life, no significant reduction was detected in the rate of death from all causes.⁸ But the analysis did not necessarily support removing the claim of reduced all-cause mortality for cardiac rehabilitation: only randomized controlled trials were examined, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was deemed to be low to moderate because of a general paucity of reports, including many small trials that followed patients for less than 12 months.

A large cohort analysis¹⁵ with more than 73,000 patients who had undergone cardiac rehabilitation found a relative reduction in mortality rate of 58% at 1 year and 21% to 34% at 5 years, with elderly women gaining the most benefit. In the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial, with more than 2,300 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years, exercise training for heart failure was associated with reduced rates of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99; P = .03).¹⁸

Regardless of the precise reduction in all-cause mortality, the cardiovascular and health-quality outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation clearly indicate benefit. More trials with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed to definitively determine the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the all-cause mortality rate.

WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED CARDIAC REHABILITATION?

The 2006 CMS coverage criteria listed the indications for cardiac rehabilitation as myocardial infarction within the preceding 12 months, coronary artery bypass surgery, stable angina pectoris, heart valve repair or replacement, percutaneous coronary intervention, and heart or heart-lung transplant.

In 2014, stable chronic systolic heart failure was added to the list (Table 2). Qualifications include New York Heart Association class II (mild symptoms, slight limitation of activity) to class IV (severe limitations, symptoms at rest), an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and being stable on optimal medical therapy for at least 6 weeks.

In 2017, CMS approved supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Supervised exercise has a class 1 recommendation by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for treating intermittent claudication. Supervised exercise therapy can increase walking distance by 180% and is superior to medical therapy alone. Unsupervised exercise has a class 2b recommendation.^19,20

Other patients may not qualify for phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation according to CMS or private insurance but could benefit from an exercise prescription and enrollment in a local phase 3 or home exercise program. Indications might include diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atrial fibrillation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after newer, less-invasive procedures for transcatheter valve repair and replacement are not well established, and more research is needed in this area.

WHEN TO REFER

Ades et al have defined cardiac rehabilitation referral as a combination of electronic medical records order, patient-physician discussion, and receipt of an order by a cardiac rehabilitation program.²¹

Ideally, referral for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation should take place at the time of hospital discharge. The AACVPR endorses a “cardiovascular continuum of care” model that emphasizes a smooth transition from inpatient to outpatient programs.⁶ Inpatient referral is a strong predictor of cardiac rehabilitation enrollment, and lack of referral in phase 1 negatively affects enrollment rates.

Depending on the diagnosis, US and Canadian guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation starting within 1 to 4 weeks of the index event, with acceptable wait times up to 60 days.^6,22 In the United Kingdom, referral is recommended within 24 hours of patient eligibility; assessment for a cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation program, with a defined pathway and individual goals, is expected to be completed within 10 working days of referral.²³ Such a standard is difficult to meet in the United States, where the time from hospital discharge to cardiac rehabilitation program enrollment averages 35 days.^24,25

After an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction should start outpatient cardiac rehabilitation within 14 days of the index event. For such cases, cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to be safe within 1 to 2 weeks of hospital discharge and is associated with increased participation rates.

REHABILITATION IS STILL UNDERUSED

Despite its significant benefits, cardiac rehabilitation is underused for many reasons.

Referral rates vary

A study using the 1997 Medicare claims data­base showed national referral rates of only 14% after myocardial infarction and 31% after coronary artery bypass grafting.³¹

A later study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2009 and 2017 found that the situation had improved, with a referral rate of about 60% for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.³² Nevertheless, referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation remain highly variable and still lag behind other CMS quality measures for optimal medical therapy after acute myocardial infarction (Figure 1). Factors associated with higher referral rates included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, care in a high-volume center for percutaneous coronary intervention, and care in a private or community hospital in a Midwestern state. Small Midwestern hospitals generally had referral rates of over 80%, while major teaching hospitals and hospital systems on the East Coast and the West Coast had referral rates of less than 20%. Unlike some studies, this study found that insurance status had little bearing on referral rates.

Other studies found lower referral rates for women and patients with comorbidities such as previous coronary artery bypass grafting, diabetes, and heart failure.^33,34

In the United Kingdom, patients with heart failure made up only 5% of patients in cardiac rehabilitation; only 7% to 20% of patients with a heart failure diagnosis were referred to cardiac rehabilitation from general and cardiology wards.³⁵

Enrollment, completion rates even lower

Rates of referral for cardiac rehabilitation do not equate to rates of enrollment or participation. Enrollment was 50% in the United Kingdom in 2016.³⁵ A 2015 US study evaluated 58,269 older patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction;  62% were referred for cardiac rehabilitation at the time of discharge, but only 23% of the total attended at least 1 session, and just 5% of the total completed 36 or more sessions.³⁶

BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

The underuse of cardiac rehabilitation in the United States has led to an American Heart Association presidential advisory on the referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.³⁴ Dozens of barriers are mentioned, with several standing out as having the largest impact: lack of physician referral, weak endorsement by the prescribing provider, female sex of patients, lack of program availability, work-related hardship, low socioeconomic status, and lack of or limited healthcare insurance. Copayments have also become a major barrier, often ranging from $20 to $40 per session for patients with Medicare.

The Million Hearts Initiative has established a goal of 70% cardiac rehabilitation compliance for eligible patients by 2022, a goal they estimate could save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually.²¹

Lack of physician awareness and lack of referral may be the most modifiable factors with the capacity to have the largest impact. Increasing physician awareness is a top priority not only for primary care providers, but also for cardiologists. In 2014, CMS made referral for cardiac rehabilitation a quality measure that is trackable and reportable. CMS has also proposed models that would incentivize participation by increasing reimbursement for services provided, but these models have been halted.

Additional efforts to increase cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation include automated order sets, increased caregiver education, and early morning or late evening classes, single-sex classes, home or mobile-based exercise programs, and parking and transportation assistance.³⁴ Grace et al³⁷ reported that referral rates rose to 86% when a cardiac rehabilitation order was integrated into the electronic medical record and combined with a hospital liaison to educate patients about their need for cardiac rehabilitation. Lowering patient copayments would also be a good idea. We have recently seen some creative ways to reduce copayments, including philanthropy and grants.

Cardiac rehabilitation has a class 1 indication (ie, strong recommendation) after heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention, and for stable angina or peripheral artery disease. It has a class 2a indication (ie, moderate recommendation) for stable systolic heart failure. Yet it is still under­utilized despite its demonstrated benefits, endorsement by most recognized cardiovascular societies, and coverage by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here, we review cardiac rehabilitation—its benefits, appropriate indications, barriers to referral and enrollment, and efforts to increase its use.

EXERCISE: SLOW TO BE ADOPTED

In 1772, William Heberden (also remembered today for describing swelling of the distal interphalangeal joints in osteoarthritis) described¹ a patient with angina pectoris who “set himself a task of sawing wood for half an hour every day, and was nearly cured.”

Despite early clues, it would be some time before the medical community would recognize the benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health. Before the 1930s, immobilization and extended bedrest were encouraged for up to 6 weeks after a cardiovascular event, leading to significant deconditioning.² Things slowly began to change in the 1940s with Levine’s introduction of up-to-chair therapy,³ and short daily walks were introduced in the 1950s. Over time, the link between a sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease was studied and led to greater investigation into the benefits of exercise, propelling us into the modern era.^4,5

CARDIAC REHABILITATION: COMPREHENSIVE RISK REDUCTION

The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) defines cardiac rehabilitation as the provision of comprehensive long-term services involving medical evaluation, prescriptive exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification, education, counseling, and behavioral interventions.⁶ CMS defines it as a physician-supervised program that furnishes physician-prescribed exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification (including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention), psychosocial assessment, outcomes assessment, and other items and services.⁷

In general, most cardiac rehabilitation programs provide medically supervised exercise and patient education designed to improve cardiac health and functional status. Risk factors are targeted to reduce disability and rates of morbidity and mortality, to improve functional capacity, and to alleviate activity-related symptoms.

FROM HOSPITAL TO SELF-MAINTENANCE

Phase 1: Inpatient rehabilitation

Phase 1 typically takes place in the inpatient setting, often after open heart surgery (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair or replacement, heart transplant), myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention. This phase may last only a few days, especially in the current era of short hospital stays.

During phase 1, patients discuss their health situation and goals with their primary provider or cardiologist and receive education about recovery and cardiovascular risk factors. Early mobilization to prepare for discharge and to resume simple activities of daily living is emphasized. Depending on the institution, phase 1 exercise may involve simple ambulation on the ward or using equipment such as a stationary bike or treadmill.⁶ Phase 2 enrollment ideally is set up before discharge.

Phase 2: Limited-time outpatient rehabilitation

Phase 2 traditionally takes place in a hospital-based outpatient facility and consists of a physician-supervised multidisciplinary program. Growing evidence shows that home-based cardiac rehabilitation may be as effective as a medical facility-based program and should be an option for patients who have difficulty getting access to a traditional program.⁸

A phase 2 program takes a threefold approach, consisting of exercise, aggressive risk-factor modification, and education classes. A Cochrane review⁹ included programs that also incorporated behavioral modification and psychosocial support as a means of secondary prevention, underscoring the evolving definition of cardiac rehabilitation.

During the initial phase 2 visit, an individualized treatment plan is developed, incorporating an exercise prescription and realistic goals for secondary prevention. Sessions typically take place 3 times a week for up to 36 sessions; usually, options are available for less frequent weekly attendance for a longer period to achieve a full course. In some cases, patients may qualify for up to 72 sessions, particularly if they have not progressed as expected.

Exercise. As part of the initial evaluation, AACVPR guidelines⁶ suggest an exercise test­—eg, a symptom-limited exercise stress test, a 6-minute walk test, or use of a Rating of Perceived Exertion scale. Prescribed exercise generally targets moderate activity in the range of 50% to 70% of peak estimated functional capacity. In the appropriate clinical context, high-functioning patients can be offered high-intensity interval training instead of moderate exercise, as they confer similar benefits.¹⁰

Risk-factor reduction. Comprehensive risk-factor reduction can address smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and diet, as well as psychosocial issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use. Sexual activity counseling may also be included.

Education classes are aimed at helping patients understand cardiovascular disease and empowering them to manage their medical treatment and lifestyle modifications.⁶

Phase 3: Lifetime maintenance

In phase 3, patients independently continue risk-factor modification and physical activity without cardiac monitoring. Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offer transition-to-maintenance classes after completion of phase 2; this may be a welcome option, particularly for those who have developed a good routine and rapport with the staff and other participants. Others may opt for an independent program, using their own home equipment or a local health club.

EXERCISE: MOSTLY SAFE, WITH PROVEN BENEFITS

The safety of cardiac rehabilitation is well established, with a low risk of major cardiovascular complications. A US study in the early 1980s of 167 cardiac rehabilitation programs found 1 cardiac arrest for every 111,996 exercise hours, 1 myocardial infarction per 293,990 exercise hours, and 1 fatality per 783,972 exercise hours.¹¹ A 2006 study of more than 65 cardiac rehabilitation centers in France found 1 cardiac event per 8,484 exercise tests and 1.3 cardiac arrests per 1 million exercise hours.¹²

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation are numerous and substantial.^9,13–17 A 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials with 14,486 participants found a reduced rate of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.86), with a number needed to treat of 37, and fewer hospital re­admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96).⁹

Reductions in mortality rates are dose-dependent. A study of more than 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries who participated in cardiac rehabilitation found that those who attended more sessions had a lower rate of morbidity and death at 4 years, particularly if they participated in more than 11 sessions. Those who attended the full 36 sessions had a mortality rate 47% lower than those who attended a single session.¹⁷ There was a 15% reduction in mortality for those who attended 36 sessions compared with 24 sessions, a 28% lower risk with attending 36 sessions compared with 12. After adjustment, each additional 6 sessions was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality. The curves continued to separate up to 4 years.

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation go beyond risk reduction and include improved functional capacity, greater ease with activities of daily living, and improved quality of life.⁹ Patients receive structure and support from the management team and other participants, which may provide an additional layer of friendship and psychosocial support for making lifestyle changes.

Is the overall mortality rate improved?

In the modern era, with access to optimal medical therapy and drug-eluting stents, one might expect only small additional benefit from cardiac rehabilitation. The 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis found that although cardiac rehabilitation contributed to improved cardiovascular mortality rates and health-related quality of life, no significant reduction was detected in the rate of death from all causes.⁸ But the analysis did not necessarily support removing the claim of reduced all-cause mortality for cardiac rehabilitation: only randomized controlled trials were examined, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was deemed to be low to moderate because of a general paucity of reports, including many small trials that followed patients for less than 12 months.

A large cohort analysis¹⁵ with more than 73,000 patients who had undergone cardiac rehabilitation found a relative reduction in mortality rate of 58% at 1 year and 21% to 34% at 5 years, with elderly women gaining the most benefit. In the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial, with more than 2,300 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years, exercise training for heart failure was associated with reduced rates of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99; P = .03).¹⁸

Regardless of the precise reduction in all-cause mortality, the cardiovascular and health-quality outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation clearly indicate benefit. More trials with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed to definitively determine the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the all-cause mortality rate.

WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED CARDIAC REHABILITATION?

The 2006 CMS coverage criteria listed the indications for cardiac rehabilitation as myocardial infarction within the preceding 12 months, coronary artery bypass surgery, stable angina pectoris, heart valve repair or replacement, percutaneous coronary intervention, and heart or heart-lung transplant.

In 2014, stable chronic systolic heart failure was added to the list (Table 2). Qualifications include New York Heart Association class II (mild symptoms, slight limitation of activity) to class IV (severe limitations, symptoms at rest), an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and being stable on optimal medical therapy for at least 6 weeks.

In 2017, CMS approved supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Supervised exercise has a class 1 recommendation by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for treating intermittent claudication. Supervised exercise therapy can increase walking distance by 180% and is superior to medical therapy alone. Unsupervised exercise has a class 2b recommendation.^19,20

Other patients may not qualify for phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation according to CMS or private insurance but could benefit from an exercise prescription and enrollment in a local phase 3 or home exercise program. Indications might include diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atrial fibrillation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after newer, less-invasive procedures for transcatheter valve repair and replacement are not well established, and more research is needed in this area.

WHEN TO REFER

Ades et al have defined cardiac rehabilitation referral as a combination of electronic medical records order, patient-physician discussion, and receipt of an order by a cardiac rehabilitation program.²¹

Ideally, referral for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation should take place at the time of hospital discharge. The AACVPR endorses a “cardiovascular continuum of care” model that emphasizes a smooth transition from inpatient to outpatient programs.⁶ Inpatient referral is a strong predictor of cardiac rehabilitation enrollment, and lack of referral in phase 1 negatively affects enrollment rates.

Depending on the diagnosis, US and Canadian guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation starting within 1 to 4 weeks of the index event, with acceptable wait times up to 60 days.^6,22 In the United Kingdom, referral is recommended within 24 hours of patient eligibility; assessment for a cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation program, with a defined pathway and individual goals, is expected to be completed within 10 working days of referral.²³ Such a standard is difficult to meet in the United States, where the time from hospital discharge to cardiac rehabilitation program enrollment averages 35 days.^24,25

After an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction should start outpatient cardiac rehabilitation within 14 days of the index event. For such cases, cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to be safe within 1 to 2 weeks of hospital discharge and is associated with increased participation rates.

REHABILITATION IS STILL UNDERUSED

Despite its significant benefits, cardiac rehabilitation is underused for many reasons.

Referral rates vary

A study using the 1997 Medicare claims data­base showed national referral rates of only 14% after myocardial infarction and 31% after coronary artery bypass grafting.³¹

A later study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2009 and 2017 found that the situation had improved, with a referral rate of about 60% for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.³² Nevertheless, referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation remain highly variable and still lag behind other CMS quality measures for optimal medical therapy after acute myocardial infarction (Figure 1). Factors associated with higher referral rates included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, care in a high-volume center for percutaneous coronary intervention, and care in a private or community hospital in a Midwestern state. Small Midwestern hospitals generally had referral rates of over 80%, while major teaching hospitals and hospital systems on the East Coast and the West Coast had referral rates of less than 20%. Unlike some studies, this study found that insurance status had little bearing on referral rates.

Other studies found lower referral rates for women and patients with comorbidities such as previous coronary artery bypass grafting, diabetes, and heart failure.^33,34

In the United Kingdom, patients with heart failure made up only 5% of patients in cardiac rehabilitation; only 7% to 20% of patients with a heart failure diagnosis were referred to cardiac rehabilitation from general and cardiology wards.³⁵

Enrollment, completion rates even lower

Rates of referral for cardiac rehabilitation do not equate to rates of enrollment or participation. Enrollment was 50% in the United Kingdom in 2016.³⁵ A 2015 US study evaluated 58,269 older patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction;  62% were referred for cardiac rehabilitation at the time of discharge, but only 23% of the total attended at least 1 session, and just 5% of the total completed 36 or more sessions.³⁶

BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

The underuse of cardiac rehabilitation in the United States has led to an American Heart Association presidential advisory on the referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.³⁴ Dozens of barriers are mentioned, with several standing out as having the largest impact: lack of physician referral, weak endorsement by the prescribing provider, female sex of patients, lack of program availability, work-related hardship, low socioeconomic status, and lack of or limited healthcare insurance. Copayments have also become a major barrier, often ranging from $20 to $40 per session for patients with Medicare.

The Million Hearts Initiative has established a goal of 70% cardiac rehabilitation compliance for eligible patients by 2022, a goal they estimate could save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually.²¹

Lack of physician awareness and lack of referral may be the most modifiable factors with the capacity to have the largest impact. Increasing physician awareness is a top priority not only for primary care providers, but also for cardiologists. In 2014, CMS made referral for cardiac rehabilitation a quality measure that is trackable and reportable. CMS has also proposed models that would incentivize participation by increasing reimbursement for services provided, but these models have been halted.

Additional efforts to increase cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation include automated order sets, increased caregiver education, and early morning or late evening classes, single-sex classes, home or mobile-based exercise programs, and parking and transportation assistance.³⁴ Grace et al³⁷ reported that referral rates rose to 86% when a cardiac rehabilitation order was integrated into the electronic medical record and combined with a hospital liaison to educate patients about their need for cardiac rehabilitation. Lowering patient copayments would also be a good idea. We have recently seen some creative ways to reduce copayments, including philanthropy and grants.