Search

The article presents a study that assesses the extent to which patients cared for longitudinally in cardiology clinics come across the current hypertension control performance metric. The study also evaluates physician-level difference in hypertension control rates and analyzes the degree to which irregularity in the performance of the physician is explained by patient heterogeneity. Clinician responses to elevated blood pressure in the clinic are also presented.

Background: Although the informed consent process is supposed to help potential research participants make informed and voluntary decisions about participating in research, little is known about how participants react to language in the informed consent document and whether their reactions are related to their willingness to enroll in clinical trials. We examined the relationship between patients' reactions to standard informed consent language and their willingness to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial.Methods and Results: We simulated the consent process for a hypothetical cardiology clinical trial with 470 patients in an outpatient cardiovascular medicine clinic at a large academic medical center. We analyzed the spontaneous comments and questions that participants made during the interviews about each section of the informed consent document. Few participants made positive comments. Participants made the most negative comments about the sections on risks, study purpose or protocol, and payment for injury. Having a negative reaction to any section was associated with a lower likelihood of participating in the clinical trial. Using a multivariable model, we found that negative reactions in the patient rights, financial disclosure, and confidentiality sections predicted willingness to participate (P<0.001).Conclusions: Recognizing elements of informed consent that elicit questions and concerns from potential research participants may help investigators design clinical research trials and model language in a way that reduces concerns or increases participant understanding, thereby enhancing informed consent for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have examined the use of evidence-based therapies for coronary artery disease (CAD) in the short term and at hospital discharge, but few have evaluated long-term use., Methods and Results: Using the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease for the years 1995 to 2002, we determined the annual prevalence and consistency of self-reported use of aspirin, beta-blockers, lipid-lowering agents, and their combinations in all CAD patients and of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in those with and without heart failure. Logistic-regression models identified characteristics associated with consistent use (reported on > or =2 consecutive follow-up surveys and then through death, withdrawal, or study end), and Cox proportional-hazards models explored the association of consistent use with mortality. Use of all agents and combinations thereof increased yearly. In 2002, 83% reported aspirin use; 61%, beta-blocker use; 63%, lipid-lowering therapy use; 54%, aspirin and beta-blocker use; and 39%, use of all 3. Consistent use was as follows: For aspirin, 71%; beta-blockers, 46%; lipid-lowering therapy, 44%; aspirin and beta-blockers, 36%; and all 3, 21%. Among patients without heart failure, 39% reported ACEI use in 2002; consistent use was 20%. Among heart failure patients, ACEI use was 51% in 2002 and consistent use, 39%. Except for ACEIs among patients without heart failure, consistent use was associated with lower adjusted mortality: Aspirin hazard ratio (HR), 0.58 and 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54 to 0.62; beta-blockers, HR, 0.63 and 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.67; lipid-lowering therapy, HR, 0.52 and 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; all 3, HR, 0.67 and 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.77; aspirin and beta-blockers, HR, 0.61 and 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.65; and ACEIs among heart failure patients, HR, 0.75 and 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.84., Conclusions: Use of evidence-based therapies for CAD has improved but remains suboptimal. Although improved discharge prescription of these agents is needed, considerable attention must also be focused on understanding and improving long-term adherence.

Background: Major infections are infrequent but important complications of cardiac surgery. Predicting their occurrence is essential for future prevention. The objective of the current investigation was to create and validate a bedside scoring system to estimate patient risk for major infection (mediastinitis, thoracotomy or vein harvest site infection, or septicemia) after coronary artery bypass grafting., Methods and Results: Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database, we analyzed 331 429 coronary artery bypass grafting cases from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2003, to identify risk factors for major infection. Using logistic regression, 2 models were generated and validated using split-sample validation: (1) One limited to preoperative characteristics (preop model) and (2) one model including both preoperative and intraoperative characteristics (combined model). Major infection occurred in 11 636 patients (3.51%) (25.1% mediastinitis, 32.6% saphenous harvest site, 35.0% septicemia, 0.5% thoracotomy, 6.8% multiple sites). Patients with major infection had significantly higher mortality (17.3% versus 3.0%, P<0.0001) and postoperative length of stay >14 days (47.0% versus 5.9%, P<0.0001) than patients without major infection. Both the preop model (c-index 0.697) and combined model (c-index: 0.708) successfully discriminated between high- and low-risk patients. A simplified risk scoring system of 12 variables accurately predicted risk for major infection., Conclusions: We identified and validated a model that can identify patients undergoing cardiac surgery who are at high risk for major infection. These high-risk patients may be targeted for perioperative intervention strategies to reduce rates of major infection.

Background: Surgeons have adopted off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) in an effort to reduce the morbidity of surgical revascularization. However, long-term outcome of OPCAB compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains poorly defined., Methods and Results: Using logistic regression analysis and proportional hazards modeling, short-term and long-term outcomes (perioperative mortality and complications, risk-adjusted survival, and survival/freedom from revascularization) were investigated for patients who underwent OPCAB (641 patients) and CABG-cardiopulmonary bypass (5026 patients) from 1998 to 2003 at our institution. For these variables, follow-up was 98% complete. OPCAB patients were less likely to receive transfusion (odds ratio for OPCAB, 0.80; P=0.037), and there were trends toward improvement in other short-term outcomes compared with CABG-cardiopulmonary bypass. Long-term outcomes analysis demonstrated no difference in survival, but OPCAB patients were more likely to require repeat revascularization (OPCAB hazard ratio, 1.29; P=0.020)., Conclusions: OPCAB patients were less likely to receive transfusion during their hospitalization for surgery but had higher risk for revascularization in follow-up. These results highlight the need for a large randomized, controlled trial to compare these 2 techniques.

Objective: To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database., Summary Background Data: Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached., Methods: Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints., Results: Discharge abstracts of 43757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.