Objective Demonstrate efficacy of vocal fold botulinum toxin injection for treatment of refractory paradoxical vocal fold motion disorder (PVFMD). Methods A retrospective review was completed of patients diagnosed with PVFMD who underwent vocal fold botulinum toxin injection for dyspnea symptoms that persisted despite laryngeal control therapy, medical management, and biofeedback therapy. Outcomes measured included overall improvement and resolution of dyspnea symptoms, number of botulinum toxin injections and dose range, change in dyspnea severity index (DSI) scores, and adverse effects of injection therapy. Results Thirteen patients (9 female/4 male) underwent vocal fold botulinum toxin injection for refractory PVFMD. The average dose was 2.55 units per vocal fold (range 1.75–5.5 units). The average number of injections was 3.85 (range 1–12 injections). Eleven of 13 (84.6%) patients experienced improvement in dyspnea symptoms, with two of 11 (18.2%) having complete resolution of symptoms. There was a statistically significant improvement in DSI scores because the mean preinjection DSI was 30.43 and improved to 17.43 postinjection (P = 0.017). Temporary breathy voice quality was experienced by all patients with no other adverse side effects. Conclusion Vocal fold botulinum toxin injection is a safe and effective treatment option for PVFMD and should be considered in patients with refractory dyspnea symptoms following appropriate medical therapy and respiratory retraining protocols. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 129:808–811, 2019

No abstract

Objectives: The unplanned readmission rate after carotid procedures is approximately 6%, but most prior studies are limited to only index hospital readmission. Up to one in three postoperative readmissions occur at a different hospital and are missed by current metrics. There are no national studies examining readmission after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS), including to different hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare unplanned readmission incidence and risk factors between carotid endarterectomy and CAS, including readmissions to any hospital, in a nationally representative sample.Methods: The 2010 through 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for all patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy or CAS. Outcomes included postprocedure stroke (cerebrovascular accident), 30-day readmission, and mortality during initial admission or 30-day readmission. A univariable analysis of 39 demographic, clinical, and hospital variables was conducted with significance set at P < .05. Significant variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors for readmission. Results were weighted for national estimates.Results: There were 527,622 patients who underwent carotid procedures and 13.1% (n ¼ 69,187) who underwent CAS. The 30-day readmission rate was 6.8% (n ¼ 35,782) and, of those, 24.8% (n ¼ 8,862) were readmitted to a different hospital. When controlling for other factors, readmission to a different hospital increased mortality risk (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.63; P < .01). Risk factors for 30-day readmission to a different hospital included elective initial admission (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.51; P < .01), Medicaid (1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P < .01), Medicare (1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.31; P < .01), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; P ¼ .01). CAS was a risk factor for readmission (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14; P < .01) and readmission to a different hospital (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48; P < .01). CAS was also a risk factor for postoperative cerebrovascular accident on admission (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; P < .01) and readmission (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.37-1.62; P < .01).Conclusions: Previously unreported, one in four readmissions after carotid procedures occur at a different hospital. This fragmentation of care increases mortality risk. Readmission after CAS in particular is underestimated. Patient counseling using current risk data is possibly flawed. There are significant implications for clinical decision making, outcomes measurement, benchmarking, and quality assessment.