Bonds between fibronectin and fibronectin-binding proteins on Staphylococcus aureus and Lactococcus lactis.

Bacterial cell-wall-associated fibronectin binding proteins A and B (FnBPA and FnBPB) form bonds with host fibronectin. This binding reaction is often the initial step in prosthetic device infections. Atomic force microscopy was used to evaluate binding interactions between a fibronectin-coated probe and laboratory-derived Staphylococcus aureus that are (i) defective in both FnBPA and FnBPB (fnbA fnbB double mutant, DU5883), (ii) capable of expressing only FnBPA (fnbA fnbB double mutant complemented with pFNBA4), or (iii) capable of expressing only FnBPB (fnbA fnbB double mutant complemented with pFNBB4). These experiments were repeated using Lactococcus lactis constructs expressing fnbA and fnbB genes from S. aureus. A distinct force signature was observed for those bacteria that expressed FnBPA or FnBPB. Analysis of this force signature with the biomechanical wormlike chain model suggests that parallel bonds form between fibronectin and FnBPs on a bacterium. The strength and covalence of bonds were evaluated via nonlinear regression of force profiles. Binding events were more frequent (p < 0.01) for S. aureus expressing FnBPA or FnBPB than for the S. aureus double mutant. The binding force, frequency, and profile were similar between the FnBPA and FnBPB expressing strains of S. aureus. The absence of both FnBPs from the surface of S. aureus removed its ability to form a detectable bond with fibronectin. By contrast, ectopic expression of FnBPA or FnBPB on the surface of L. lactis conferred fibronectin binding characteristics similar to those of S. aureus. These measurements demonstrate that fibronectin-binding adhesins FnBPA and FnBPB are necessary and sufficient for the binding of S. aureus to prosthetic devices that are coated with host fibronectin.

Variation in Inpatient Rehabilitation Utilization After Hospitalization for Burn Injury in the United States.

Approximately 45,000 individuals are hospitalized annually for burn treatment. Rehabilitation after hospitalization can offer a significant improvement in functional outcomes. Very little is known nationally about rehabilitation for burns, and practices may vary substantially depending on the region based on observed Medicare post-hospitalization spending amounts. This study was designed to measure variation in rehabilitation utilization by state of hospitalization for patients hospitalized with burn injury. This retrospective cohort study used nationally collected data over a 10-year period (2001 to 2010), from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SIDs). Patients hospitalized for burn injury (n = 57,968) were identified by ICD-9-CM codes and were examined to see specifically if they were discharged immediately to inpatient rehabilitation after hospitalization (primary endpoint). Both unadjusted and adjusted likelihoods were calculated for each state taking into account the effects of age, insurance status, hospitalization at a burn center, and extent of burn injury by TBSA. The relative risk of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation varied by as much as 6-fold among different states. Higher TBSA, having health insurance, higher age, and burn center hospitalization all increased the likelihood of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation following acute care hospitalization. There was significant variation between states in inpatient rehabilitation utilization after adjusting for variables known to affect each outcome. Future efforts should be focused on identifying the cause of this state-to-state variation, its relationship to patient outcome, and standardizing treatment across the United States.

Does commitment to rehabilitation influence clinical outcome of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether compliance and rehabilitative efforts were predictors of early clinical outcome of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was utilized to collect information from 147 resurfacing patients, who were operated on by a single surgeon, regarding their level of commitment to rehabilitation following surgery. Patients were followed for a mean of 52 months (range, 24 to 90 months). Clinical outcomes and functional capabilities were assessed utilizing the Harris hip objective rating system, the SF-12 Health Survey, and an eleven-point satisfaction score. A linear regression analysis was used to determine whether there was any correlation between the rehabilitation commitment scores and any of the outcome measures, and a multivariate regression model was used to control for potentially confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, an increased level of commitment to rehabilitation was positively correlated with each of the following outcome measures: SF-12 Mental Component Score, SF-12 Physical Component Score, Harris Hip score, and satisfaction scores. These correlations remained statistically significant in the multivariate regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were more committed to their therapy after hip resurfacing returned to higher levels of functionality and were more satisfied following their surgery.

Selection of Postacute Stroke Rehabilitation Facilities: A Survey of Discharge Planners From the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium (NECC) Region.

The process of determining the level of care and specific postacute care facility for stroke patients has not been adequately studied. The objective of this study was to better understand the factors that influence postacute care decisions by surveying stroke discharge planners. Requests were sent to discharge planners at 471 hospitals in the Northeast United States to complete an online survey regarding the factors impacting the selection of postacute care. Seventy-seven (16%) discharge planners completed the online survey. Respondents were mainly nurses and social workers and 73% reported ≥20 years healthcare experience. Patients and families were found to be significantly more influential than physicians (P < 0.001) and other clinicians (P = 0.04) in influencing postdischarge care. Other clinicians were significantly more influential than physicians (P < 0.001). Insurance and quality of postacute care were the factors likely to most affect the selection of postacute care facility. Insurance was also identified as the greatest barrier in the selection of level of postacute care (70%; P < 0.001) and specific postacute care facility (46%; P = 0.02). More than half reported that pressure to discharge patients quickly impacts a patients' final destination. Nonclinical factors are perceived by discharge planners to have a major influence on postacute stroke care decision making.