Military medicine
-
Low back pain (LBP) has accounted for the most medical encounters every year for the past decade among Active Duty Service Members (ADSMs) of the U.S. Armed Forces. The objectives of this retrospective, descriptive study were to classify LBP by clinical category (Axial, Radicular, and Other) and duration (Acute, Subacute, and Chronic) and examine the LBP-related health care utilization, access to care, and private sector costs for ADSMs over a 2-year follow-up period. ⋯ Uncovering current trends in health care utilization and access to care for ADSMs newly presenting with LBP is vital for timely and accurate diagnosis, as well as early intervention to prevent progression to chronic LBP and to minimize its negative impact on military readiness and quality of life. This retrospective, descriptive study highlights the burden of chronic LBP on health care utilization and costs within the Military Health System, including reliance on the private sector care, amounting to $10,524,332.04 over the study period.
-
Opioids are often a mainstay of managing postsurgical pain. Persistent use of opioids for more than 90 days after surgery is problematic, and the incidence of this adverse outcome has been reported in the civilian population ranging from 0.4% to 7%. Veterans compose a special population exposed to trauma and stressful situations and consequently face increased risk for habit-forming behavior and drug overdose. This evaluation determined the prevalence of opioid persistence after surgery and its relationship to patient characteristics in a military veteran population. ⋯ Among a cohort of over 1,200 opioid-naïve veterans undergoing surgery at a VA Medical Center, just over 3% went on to develop persistent opioid use beyond 3 months following their procedure. Persistent use was not found to be related to the type of procedure (major or minor) or patient age. Significant patient-level risk factors for opioid persistence were cancer and a history of mental health and substance use disorders.
-
Comparative Study
In-hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients in the Military Health System: Comparison of Military and Civilian Facility Treatment.
Beneficiaries of TRICARE, an insurance program of the military health system, can choose to receive care within the private sector (fee-for-service) or direct (budget-based facilities with salaried providers) care setting. Previous studies in several specialties have shown that there are disparities in both resource utilization and outcomes between the two settings. In this study, we sought to determine differences in outcomes between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated in the private sector versus direct care. ⋯ With the exception of ICU admission rates, which are higher in the direct care setting, we encountered comparable hospital-based outcomes for patients treated for COVID-19 within the military health system, whether care was received under private sector or direct care.
-
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is characterized by a dysregulated inflammatory response, which may result in severe hemodynamic instability and septic shock. The Seraph-100® Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter is a commercially available extracorporeal pathogen absorbent device with the ability to bind pathogens and cytokines present within the blood. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Seraph-100® for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and septic shock. ⋯ The use of the Seraph-100® blood filter was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in hemodynamic parameters and decreased vasopressor requirements in patients with septic shock and SARS-CoV-2 infection.
-
Nonionizing radiation (NIR) is considered "possibly carcinogenic to humans," and therefore, exposure of young military personnel raises concerns regarding increased risk for cancer. The aim of our study was to compare the cancer incidence in exposed and nonexposed populations in order to gain better understanding of their risk. ⋯ Our study did not find an increased short-term risk for cancer in young adults exposed to NIR radiation as compared with unexposed young adults.