Search

IntroductionIntegrated care is effective in reducing all-cause mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care, though time and resource intensive. The aim of the current study was to assess whether integrated care should be directed at all AF patients equally.MethodsThe ALL-IN trial (n = 1,240 patients, median age 77 years) was a cluster-randomized trial in which primary care practices were randomized to provide integrated care or usual care to AF patients aged 65 years and older. Integrated care comprised of (i) anticoagulation monitoring, (ii) quarterly checkups and (iii) easy-access consultation with cardiologists. For the current analysis, cox proportional hazard analysis with all clinical variables from the CHA2DS2-VASc score was used to predict all-cause mortality in the ALL-IN trial. Subsequently, the hazard ratio and absolute risk reduction were plotted as a function of this predicted mortality risk to explore treatment heterogeneity.ResultsUnder usual care, after a median of 2 years follow-up the absolute risk of all-cause mortality in the highest-risk quarter was 31.0%, compared to 4.6% in the lowest-risk quarter. On the relative scale, there was no evidence of treatment heterogeneity (p for interaction = 0.90). However, there was substantial treatment heterogeneity on the absolute scale: risk reduction in the lowest risk- quarter of risk 3.3% (95% CI -0.4% - 7.0) compared to 12.0% (95% CI 2.7% - 22.0) in the highest risk quarter.ConclusionWhile the relative degree of benefit from integrated AF care is similar in all patients, patients with a high all-cause mortality risk have a greater benefit on an absolute scale and should therefore be prioritized when implementing integrated care.

ObjectivesCardiovascular conditions were shown to be predictive of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Whether this also holds for outpatients managed in primary care is yet unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the incremental value of cardiovascular vulnerability in predicting the risk of hospital referral in primary care COVID-19 outpatients.DesignAnalysis of anonymised routine care data extracted from electronic medical records from three large Dutch primary care registries.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsConsecutive adult patients seen in primary care for COVID-19 symptoms in the 'first wave' of COVID-19 infections (March 1 2020 to June 1 2020) and in the 'second wave' (June 1 2020 to April 15 2021) in the Netherlands.Outcome measuresA multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to predict hospital referral within 90 days after first COVID-19 consultation in primary care. Data from the 'first wave' was used for derivation (n = 5,475 patients). Age, sex, the interaction between age and sex, and the number of cardiovascular conditions and/or diabetes (0, 1, or ≥2) were pre-specified as candidate predictors. This full model was (i) compared to a simple model including only age and sex and its interaction, and (ii) externally validated in COVID-19 patients during the 'second wave' (n = 16,693).ResultsThe full model performed better than the simple model (likelihood ratio test pConclusionsFor patients with COVID-19 symptoms managed in primary care, the risk of hospital referral was on average 5.1%. Older, male and cardiovascular vulnerable COVID-19 patients are more at risk for hospital referral.

BACKGROUND: Although it is known that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) generally do have an increased heart rate, the effects on both mortality and non-fatal pulmonary complications are unclear. We assessed whether heart rate is associated with all-cause mortality, and non-fatal pulmonary endpoints. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 405 elderly patients with COPD was performed. All patients underwent extensive investigations, including electrocardiography. Follow-up data on mortality were obtained by linking the cohort to the Dutch National Cause of Death Register and information on complications (exacerbation of COPD or pneumonia) by scrutinizing patient files of general practitioners. Multivariable cox regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: During the follow-up 132 (33%) patients died. The overall mortality rate was 50/1000 py (42-59). The major causes of death were cardiovascular and respiratory. The relative risk of all-cause mortality increased with 21% for every 10 beats/minute increase in heart rate (adjusted HR: 1.21 [1.07-1.36], p = 0.002). The incidence of major non-fatal pulmonary events was 145/1000 py (120-168). The risk of a non-fatal pulmonary complication increased non-significantly with 7% for every 10 beats/minute increase in resting heart rate (adjusted HR: 1.07 [0.96-1.18], p = 0.208). CONCLUSIONS: Increased resting heart rate is a strong and independent risk factor for all-cause mortality in elderly patients with COPD. An increased resting heart rate did not result in an increased risk of exacerbations or pneumonia. This may indicate that the increased mortality risk of COPD is related to non-pulmonary causes. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate whether heart-rate lowering agents are worthwhile for COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: In diagnostic studies, a single and error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard often does not exist. One solution is the use of panel diagnosis, i.e., a group of experts who assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis in each patient. Although panel diagnosis, also known as consensus or expert diagnosis, is frequently used as the reference standard, guidance on preferred methodology is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used in panel diagnoses and to provide initial guidance on the use and reporting of panel diagnosis as reference standard. METHODS AND FINDINGS: PubMed was systematically searched for diagnostic studies applying a panel diagnosis as reference standard published up to May 31, 2012. We included diagnostic studies in which the final diagnosis was made by two or more persons based on results from multiple tests. General study characteristics and details of panel methodology were extracted. Eighty-one studies were included, of which most reported on psychiatry (37%) and cardiovascular (21%) diseases. Data extraction was hampered by incomplete reporting; one or more pieces of critical information about panel reference standard methodology was missing in 83% of studies. In most studies (75%), the panel consisted of three or fewer members. Panel members were blinded to the results of the index test results in 31% of studies. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in 17 (21%) studies. Reported details on panel constitution, information for diagnosis and methods of decision making varied considerably between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Methods of panel diagnosis varied substantially across studies and many aspects of the procedure were either unclear or not reported. On the basis of our review, we identified areas for improvement and developed a checklist and flow chart for initial guidance for researchers conducting and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Recent observational studies suggest that β-blockers may improve long-term prognosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed whether β-blocker use improves all-cause mortality in patients with episodes of acute bronchitis.An observational cohort study using data from the electronic medical records of 23 general practices in the Netherlands. The data included standardized information about daily patient contacts, diagnoses, and drug prescriptions. Cox regression was applied with time-varying treatment and covariates.The study included 4,493 patients aged 45 years and older, with at least one episode of acute bronchitis between 1996 and 2006. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 66.9 (11.7) years, and 41.9% were male. During a mean (SD) follow up period of 7.7 (2.5) years, 20.4% developed COPD. In total, 22.7% had cardiovascular comorbidities, resulting in significant higher mortality rates than those without (51.7% vs. 12.0%, p