Antipsychotic pharmacotherapy and orthostatic hypotension: identification and management.
Gugger James J
Orthostatic hypotension is a common adverse effect of antipsychotics that may delay or prevent titration to a dose necessary to control psychotic symptoms. Complications of orthostatic hypotension include syncope, transient ischaemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction and death. The risk of orthostatic hypotension associated with antipsychotic therapy is increased in patients with disorders of the autonomic nervous system, fluid imbalance and those taking concomitant drug therapy that affects haemodynamic tone. Prospective monitoring for changes in postural blood pressure is important because patients with psychotic disorders often do not articulate symptoms of orthostasis and the subjective report of dizziness does not correlate well with orthostatic blood pressure changes. Nonpharmacological strategies and patient education, most notably, slowly rising from the supine position, are crucial first steps in the prevention and treatment of both symptomatic and asymptomatic orthostatic hypotension. Pharmacological treatment is only recommended when symptomatic orthostatic hypotension persists despite proper nonpharmacological therapy and there is a compelling indication for antipsychotic treatment. Fludrocortisone is a reasonable first choice for symptomatic orthostatic hypotension. Other agents including desmopressin and midodrine may be considered in patients who do not respond favourably to a trial of fludrocortisone, but safety concerns and lack of evidence limit the utility of these agents.
Feasibility and Patient Experience of a Home-Based Rehabilitation Program Driven by a Tablet App and Mobility Monitoring for Patients After a Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Hoogland Jildou,Wijnen Annet,Munsterman Tjerk,Gerritsma Carina LE,Dijkstra Baukje,Zijlstra Wierd P,Annegarn Janneke,Ibarra Francisco,Zijlstra Wiebren,Stevens Martin
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
BACKGROUND:Recent developments in technology are promising for providing home-based exercise programs. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and patient experience of a home-based rehabilitation program after total hip arthroplasty (THA) delivered using videos on a tablet personal computer (PC) and a necklace-worn motion sensor to continuously monitor mobility-related activities. METHODS:We enrolled 30 independently living patients aged 18-75 years who had undergone THA as a treatment for primary or secondary osteoarthritis (OA) between December 2015 and February 2017. Patients followed a 12-week exercise program with video instructions on a tablet PC and daily physical activity registration through a motion sensor. Patients were asked to do strengthening and walking exercises at least 5 days a week. There was weekly phone contact with a physiotherapist. Adherence and technical problems were recorded during the intervention. User evaluation was done in week 4 (T1) and at the end of the program (T2). RESULTS:Overall, 26 patients completed the program. Average adherence for exercising 5 times a week was 92%. Reasons mentioned most often for nonadherence were vacation or a day or weekend off 25% (33/134) and work 15% (20/134). The total number of technical issues was 8. The average score on the user evaluation questionnaire (range 0-5) was 4.6 at T1 and 4.5 at T2. The highest score was for the subscale "coaching" and the lowest for the subscale "sensor." CONCLUSIONS:A home-based rehabilitation program driven by a tablet app and mobility monitoring seems feasible for THA patients. Adherence was good and patient experience was positive. The novel technology was well accepted. When the home-based rehabilitation program proves to be effective, it could be used as an alternative to formal physiotherapy. However, further research on its effectiveness is needed.
Variation in rehabilitation setting after uncomplicated total knee or hip arthroplasty: a call for evidence-based guidelines.
Naylor Justine M,Hart Andrew,Harris Ian A,Lewin Adriane M
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
BACKGROUND:High-level evidence consistently indicates that resource-intensive facility-based rehabilitation does not provide better recovery compared to home programs for uncomplicated knee or hip arthroplasty patients and, therefore, could be reserved for those most impaired. This study aimed to determine if rehabilitation setting aligns with evidence regardless of insurance status. METHODS:Sub-study within a national, prospective study involving 19 Australian high-volume public and private arthroplasty centres. Individuals undergoing primary arthroplasty for osteoarthritis participated. The main outcome was the proportion participating in each rehabilitation setting, obtained via chart review and participant telephone follow-up at 35 and 90 days post-surgery, categorised as 'facility-based' (inpatient rehabilitation and/or ≥ four outpatient-based sessions, including day-hospital) or 'home-based' (domiciliary, monitored or unmonitored home program only). We compared characteristics of the study cohort and rehabilitation setting by insurance status (public or private) using parametric and non-parametric tests, analysing the knee and hip cohorts separately. RESULTS:After excluding ineligible participants (bilateral surgeries, self-funded insurance, participation in a concurrent rehabilitation trial, experience of a major acute complication potentially affecting their rehabilitation pathway), 1334 eligible participants remained. Complete data were available for 1302 (97%) [Knee: n = 610, mean age 68.7 (8.5) yr., 51.1% female; Hip: n = 692, mean age 65.5 (10.4) yr., 48.9% female]; 26% (158/610) of knee and 61% (423/692) of hip participants participated predominantly in home-based programs. A greater proportion of public recipients were obese and had greater pre-operative joint impairment, but participated more commonly in home programs [(Knee: 32.9% (79/240) vs 21.4% (79/370) (P = 0.001); Hip: 71.0% (176/248) vs 55.6% (247/444) (P < 0.001)], less commonly in inpatient rehabilitation [Knee: 7.5% (18/240) vs 56.0% (207/370) P (< 0.001); Hip: 4.4% (11/248) vs 33.1% (147/444) (P < 0.001], and had fewer outpatient treatments [Knee: median (IQR) 6 (3) vs 8 (6) (P < 0.001); Hip: 6 (4) vs 8 (6) (P < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS:Facility-based programs remain the norm for most knee and many hip arthroplasty recipients with insurance status being a major determinant of care. Development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines may help resolve the evidence-practice gap, addressing unwarranted practice variation across the insurance sectors.
Rehabilitation via HOMe Based gaming exercise for the Upper-limb post Stroke (RHOMBUS): protocol of an intervention feasibility trial.
Kilbride Cherry,Scott Daniel J M,Butcher Tom,Norris Meriel,Ryan Jennifer M,Anokye Nana,Warland Alyson,Baker Karen,Athanasiou Dimitrios A,Singla-Buxarrais Guillem,Nowicky Alexander
INTRODUCTION:Effective interventions to promote upper-limb recovery poststroke are characterised by intensive and repetitive movements. However, the repetitive nature of practice may adversely impact on adherence. Therefore, the development of rehabilitation devices that can be used safely and easily at home, and are motivating, enjoyable and affordable is essential to the health and well-being of stroke survivors.The Neurofenix platform is a non-immersive virtual reality device for poststroke upper-limb rehabilitation. The platform uses a hand controller (a NeuroBall) or arm bands (NeuroBands) that facilitate upper-limb exercise via games displayed on a tablet. The Rehabilitation via HOMe Based gaming exercise for the Upper-limb post Stroke trial aims to determine the safety, feasibility and acceptability of the Neurofenix platform for home-based rehabilitation of the upper-limb poststroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Thirty people poststroke will be provided with a Neurofenix platform, consisting of a NeuroBall or NeuroBands (dependent on impairment level), seven specially designed games, a tablet and handbook to independently exercise their upper limb for 7 weeks. Training commences with a home visit from a research therapist to teach the participant how to safely use the device. Outcomes assessed at baseline and 8 weeks and 12 weeks are gross level of disability, pain, objectively measured arm function and impairment, self-reported arm function, passive range of movement, spasticity, fatigue, participation, quality of life (QOL) and health service use. A parallel process evaluation will assess feasibility, acceptability and safety of the intervention through assessment of fidelity to the intervention measured objectively through the Neurofenix platform, a postintervention questionnaire and semistructured interviews exploring participants' experiences of the intervention. The feasibility of conducting an economic evaluation will be determined by collecting data on QOL and resource use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval granted from Brunel University London (10249-MHR-Mar/2018-12322-2). Trial results will be submitted for publication in journals, presented at national and international conferences and distributed to people with stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN60291412; Pre-results.