BackgroundImprovements in software and design and reduction in cost have made virtual reality (VR) a practical tool for immersive, three-dimensional (3D), multisensory experiences that distract patients from painful stimuli.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to measure the impact of a onetime 3D VR intervention versus a two-dimensional (2D) distraction video for pain in hospitalized patients.MethodsWe conducted a comparative cohort study in a large, urban teaching hospital in medical inpatients with an average pain score of ≥3/10 from any cause. Patients with nausea, vomiting, dementia, motion sickness, stroke, seizure, and epilepsy and those placed in isolation were excluded. Patients in the intervention cohort viewed a 3D VR experience designed to reduce pain using the Samsung Gear Oculus VR headset; control patients viewed a high-definition, 2D nature video on a 14-inch bedside screen. Pre- and postintervention pain scores were recorded. Difference-in-difference scores and the proportion achieving a half standard deviation pain response were compared between groups.ResultsThere were 50 subjects per cohort (N=100). The mean pain reduction in the VR cohort was greater than in controls (−1.3 vs −0.6 points, respectively; P=.008). A total of 35 (65%) patients in the VR cohort achieved a pain response versus 40% of controls (P=.01; number needed to treat=4). No adverse events were reported from VR.ConclusionsUse of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. These results indicate that VR is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pain management in the acute inpatient setting; future randomized trials should confirm benefit with different visualizations and exposure periods.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pJ1P644S)

Despite growing interest in remote patient monitoring, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims of its ability to improve outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of using wearable biosensors (e.g. activity trackers) for remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes. We expanded upon prior reviews by assessing effectiveness across indications and presenting quantitative summary data. We searched for articles from January 2000 to October 2016 in PubMed, reviewed 4,348 titles, selected 777 for abstract review, and 64 for full text review. A total of 27 RCTs from 13 different countries focused on a range of clinical outcomes and were retained for final analysis; of these, we identified 16 high-quality studies. We estimated a difference-in-differences random effects meta-analysis on select outcomes. We weighted the studies by sample size and used 95% confidence intervals (CI) around point estimates. Difference-in-difference point estimation revealed no statistically significant impact of remote patient monitoring on any of six reported clinical outcomes, including body mass index (−0.73; 95% CI: −1.84, 0.38), weight (−1.29; −3.06, 0.48), waist circumference (−2.41; −5.16, 0.34), body fat percentage (0.11; −1.56, 1.34), systolic blood pressure (−2.62; −5.31, 0.06), and diastolic blood pressure (−0.99; −2.73, 0.74). Studies were highly heterogeneous in their design, device type, and outcomes. Interventions based on health behavior models and personalized coaching were most successful. We found substantial gaps in the evidence base that should be considered before implementation of remote patient monitoring in the clinical setting.

Objectives Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an effective, drug-free tool for pain management, but there is a lack of randomized, controlled data evaluating its effectiveness in hospitalized patients. We sought to measure the impact of on-demand VR versus “health and wellness” television programming for pain in hospitalized patients. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial in hospitalized patients with an average pain score of ≥3 out of 10 points. Patients in the experimental group received a library of 21 VR experiences administered using the Samsung Gear Oculus headset; control patients viewed specialized television programming to promote health and wellness. Clinical staff followed usual care; study interventions were not protocolized. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain using a numeric rating scale, as recorded by nursing staff during usual care. Pre- and post-intervention pain scores were compared immediately after initial treatment and after 48- and 72-hours. Results There were 120 subjects (61 VR; 59 control). The mean within-subject difference in immediate pre- and post-intervention pain scores was larger in the VR group (-1.72 points; SD 3.56) than in the control group (-0.46 points; SD 3.01); this difference was significant in favor of VR (P < .04). When limited to the subgroup of patients with severe baseline pain (≥7 points), the effect of VR was more pronounced vs. control (-3.04, SD 3.75 vs. -0.93, SD 2.16 points; P = .02). In regression analyses adjusting for pre-intervention pain, time, age, gender, and type of pain, VR yielded a .59 (P = .03) and .56 (P = .04) point incremental reduction in pain versus control during the 48- and 72-hour post-intervention periods, respectively. Conclusions VR significantly reduces pain versus an active control condition in hospitalized patients. VR is most effective for severe pain. Future trials should evaluate standardized order sets that interpose VR as an early non-drug option for analgesia.

Non-invasive, abdominal acoustic monitoring distinguishes POI from non-POI subjects. Future research will test whether AGIS can identify patients at risk for development of POI and assist with postoperative feeding decisions.

The authors present the case of a 27-year-old woman with Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) and extensive intracranial involvement, in whom the initial diagnosis of ECD was established based on computerized tomography (CT)-guided stereotactic biopsy of a caudate lesion. Erdheim-Chester disease is a rare non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis of unknown origin that is clinically characterized by bone pain, diabetes insipidus, and exophthalmos. The radiological hallmarks of the disease include symmetrical sclerosis of the long bones with epiphysial sparing and increased tracer uptake in lesions seen on scintigraphic imaging. Erdheim-Chester disease is characterized histologically by the presence of infiltrating lipid-laden histiocytes that commonly involve the retroperitoneum, orbits, skin, pericardium, lungs, and long bones. Although the occurrence of diabetes insipidus often precedes the diagnosis of ECD by more than a decade in most patients, magnetic resonance imaging- and CT-documented central nervous system involvement is exceedingly rare. In the setting of neurological involvement, neurosurgical biopsy has been reported seven times in the literature, with only one of these biopsies being the basis for the initial diagnosis of the disease. The authors' case represents only the second time the disease has been diagnosed by means of neurosurgical biopsy, highlighting the diagnostic difficulties that patients with EDC present. Skeletal radiographs were confirmatory in this case and this modality should be emphasized as the simplest and most direct route to the diagnosis. The degree of neurological involvement further distinguishes the case presented from prior reports in the literature. The multiple bilateral intraaxial lesions were intensely enhancing on contrast CT scans, distributed infra- and supratentorially, involving both white and gray matter, and associated with diffuse cerebral edema. The case presented is also remarkable by virtue of the symmetrical involvement of the caudate nuclei, representing the first such example documented in the literature. The diagnosis, treatment, and outcome in this patient are discussed, and a review of the literature is presented.